Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 59 of 59

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

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,118

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    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.
    I disagree with you, and so do the Church Fathers. The "people of the prince to come" does not emphasize the "prince," but rather, the "people." Therefore, the "he" who confirms the covenant refers back to mention of the "Anointed One," the Messiah, who will be "put to death."

    The "destruction of the city and the sanctuary" is mentioned as following the death of Messiah. There is no need to mention, at this point, that Messiah's death takes place in the 70th Week. But it is mentioned in the following verse that Messiah confirms a covenant in the 70th Week, which means that Messiah's death must also take place in the 70th Week.

    Nevertheless, the city is destroyed *after* death of Messiah. Since we know Messiah dies in the 70th Week, the city's destruction must take place *after* the 70th Week!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    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.
    The "he" who confirms a covenant is *not* the prince of the people who destroy Jerusalem! Rather, the "he" who confirms a covenant is the "Anointed One," the Messiah. The whole 70 Weeks prophecy is about the fulfillment of 6 things, and the Messiah is the one who brings this about by "confirming a covenant." The destruction of the city follows the death of the Messiah.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    In which case then it is the Roman General who is confirming the covenant.

    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.

    Yes. And? "dabar" is translated in this SAME passage to mean "word", as in the WORD of the Lord.
    At your own admission, "dabar" is a ubiquitous term. Therefore, use of the same word in a multitude of places does not mean there is a specialized, technical application of the term from one context to another.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    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 didn't say "word" and "decree" are the same word. I said these 2 words can be used interchangeably when "word" is being applied in the sense of a decree.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    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.

    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.
    No, the Scriptures tell us that it would take "7 Weeks" to rebuild the city.

    Dan 9.5 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens.' "

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    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.

    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.
    I stand by the quote:

    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 obviously a long drawn out process that only *began* with the construction of the walls. The building of the walls is *not* the building of the entire city! It's just the beginning. The outer walls were necessary to protect workers while they rebuilt the city. This, according to Dan 9, would take 49 years! Appointing magistrates and judges would take much longer because it would require the building of residences and public buildings. These things are not as simple as building a wall!

    I just had a house built. It took over one year! Can you imagine how long it would take to build houses and public buildings in that day and age, with inferior technology?

    How long, for example, do you think it took for Herod to have the temple improved? I think Herod took about 15 years just to *improve* the temple. But after his death others took about 60 more years to complete the project!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    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.
    No. Artaxerxes ruled over Nehemiah. Nehemiah could not have done this without a decree from Artaxerxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    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.
    70 Weeks until X happens--not 70 Weeks + 300 Weeks until X happens. No need to belabor the point.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I disagree with you, and so do the Church Fathers. The "people of the prince to come" does not emphasize the "prince," but rather, the "people." Therefore, the "he" who confirms the covenant refers back to mention of the "Anointed One," the Messiah, who will be "put to death."
    No you are NOT disagreeing with me.
    I agree that the EMPHASIS is on the "people".
    However this does NOT allow you to IGNORE the FACT that there is a prince mentioned and that the personal pronoun "he" refers back to that prince. It does not refer back to some other he mentioned at some other time.

    The "destruction of the city and the sanctuary" is mentioned as following the death of Messiah. There is no need to mention, at this point, that Messiah's death takes place in the 70th Week. But it is mentioned in the following verse that Messiah confirms a covenant in the 70th Week, which means that Messiah's death must also take place in the 70th Week.
    It is indeed mentioned following the death of an anointed one.
    However it is NOT part of the 70th week.
    However the STATEMENT in regards to the death of an anointed one does NOT say "In the 70th week" but states "After the 62 weeks" which means the angel is NOT putting the death in the 70th week at all.

    Nevertheless, the city is destroyed *after* death of Messiah. Since we know Messiah dies in the 70th Week, the city's destruction must take place *after* the 70th Week!
    As an anointed one doesn't die in the 70th week so your argument remains empty.
    There is an anointed who dies AFTER the 62nd week, which you DEMAND means the 70th, yet the angel clearly could have said "in the 70th week" but chose a different statement altogether. This actually shows the 70 weeks are NOT continuous.

    The "he" who confirms a covenant is *not* the prince of the people who destroy Jerusalem! Rather, the "he" who confirms a covenant is the "Anointed One," the Messiah. The whole 70 Weeks prophecy is about the fulfillment of 6 things, and the Messiah is the one who brings this about by "confirming a covenant." The destruction of the city follows the death of the Messiah.
    Incorrect - simple grammar rules and usage of language shows how farcical that claim is.
    The "he" who makes the covenant is the SAME "he" in the preceding verse, which is the prince of the people.

    At your own admission, "dabar" is a ubiquitous term. Therefore, use of the same word in a multitude of places does not mean there is a specialized, technical application of the term from one context to another.
    Nope. I haven't said that. I have said "dabar" refers to the SPOKEN word. It is a word which has an EFFECT, it being a CAUSE.
    It is a DIFFERENT term to that used for a decree, which is WRITTEN.

    I didn't say "word" and "decree" are the same word. I said these 2 words can be used interchangeably when "word" is being applied in the sense of a decree.
    You mean you are claiming they are interchangeable.

    No, the Scriptures tell us that it would take "7 Weeks" to rebuild the city.
    Dan 9.5 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens.' "
    Weird, that quote does NOT say it takes 7 weeks for the city to be rebuilt. It states there are 7 weeks UNTIL an anointed one comes.

    I stand by the quote:
    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 obviously a long drawn out process that only *began* with the construction of the walls. The building of the walls is *not* the building of the entire city! It's just the beginning. The outer walls were necessary to protect workers while they rebuilt the city. This, according to Dan 9, would take 49 years! Appointing magistrates and judges would take much longer because it would require the building of residences and public buildings. These things are not as simple as building a wall!
    Problem for you IF this BEGAN with the building of the walls, as that happened in 445 BC, which by your counting is 12 years later!
    Further the city required people to live in it, which Nehemiah did by bringing a tithe in.
    A city continues to grow and be built and rebuilt etc ALL the time.
    However when a city is dedicated as complete then we can take it that it is a city in function.

    I just had a house built. It took over one year! Can you imagine how long it would take to build houses and public buildings in that day and age, with inferior technology?
    A house can, and should take a lot less than one year to build, especially a much simpler house.
    Nehemiah had an entire wall surrounding the entire city built in a few months!

    How long, for example, do you think it took for Herod to have the temple improved? I think Herod took about 15 years just to *improve* the temple. But after his death others took about 60 more years to complete the project!
    To rebuild the temple took around 2 to 3 years. After that was improvements, but the Temple was FULLY FUNCTIONAL and being used.

    No. Artaxerxes ruled over Nehemiah. Nehemiah could not have done this without a decree from Artaxerxes.
    Artaxerxes would NOT have made the decree EXCEPT there ALREADY was a decree by Cyrus.
    I take what scripture declares as my TRUTH.

    70 Weeks until X happens--not 70 Weeks + 300 Weeks until X happens. No need to belabor the point.
    It doesn't say 70 weeks until X happens.
    It actually says there are 70 weeks, but these 70 weeks are going to be split into 3 blocks and the first block will lead to this, and the next block will then go from this to this and the last block will be from this to this. SO these THREE blocks total 70 weeks, but the time is NOT from the start of the 70 weeks.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I disagree with you, and so do the Church Fathers. The "people of the prince to come" does not emphasize the "prince," but rather, the "people." Therefore, the "he" who confirms the covenant refers back to mention of the "Anointed One," the Messiah, who will be "put to death."
    No you are NOT disagreeing with me.
    I agree that the EMPHASIS is on the "people".
    However this does NOT allow you to IGNORE the FACT that there is a prince mentioned and that the personal pronoun "he" refers back to that prince. It does not refer back to some other he mentioned at some other time.

    The "destruction of the city and the sanctuary" is mentioned as following the death of Messiah. There is no need to mention, at this point, that Messiah's death takes place in the 70th Week. But it is mentioned in the following verse that Messiah confirms a covenant in the 70th Week, which means that Messiah's death must also take place in the 70th Week.
    It is indeed mentioned following the death of an anointed one.
    However it is NOT part of the 70th week.
    However the STATEMENT in regards to the death of an anointed one does NOT say "In the 70th week" but states "After the 62 weeks" which means the angel is NOT putting the death in the 70th week at all.

    Nevertheless, the city is destroyed *after* death of Messiah. Since we know Messiah dies in the 70th Week, the city's destruction must take place *after* the 70th Week!
    As an anointed one doesn't die in the 70th week so your argument remains empty.
    There is an anointed who dies AFTER the 62nd week, which you DEMAND means the 70th, yet the angel clearly could have said "in the 70th week" but chose a different statement altogether. This actually shows the 70 weeks are NOT continuous.

    The "he" who confirms a covenant is *not* the prince of the people who destroy Jerusalem! Rather, the "he" who confirms a covenant is the "Anointed One," the Messiah. The whole 70 Weeks prophecy is about the fulfillment of 6 things, and the Messiah is the one who brings this about by "confirming a covenant." The destruction of the city follows the death of the Messiah.
    Incorrect - simple grammar rules and usage of language shows how farcical that claim is.
    The "he" who makes the covenant is the SAME "he" in the preceding verse, which is the prince of the people.

    At your own admission, "dabar" is a ubiquitous term. Therefore, use of the same word in a multitude of places does not mean there is a specialized, technical application of the term from one context to another.
    Nope. I haven't said that. I have said "dabar" refers to the SPOKEN word. It is a word which has an EFFECT, it being a CAUSE.
    It is a DIFFERENT term to that used for a decree, which is WRITTEN.

    I didn't say "word" and "decree" are the same word. I said these 2 words can be used interchangeably when "word" is being applied in the sense of a decree.
    You mean you are claiming they are interchangeable.

    No, the Scriptures tell us that it would take "7 Weeks" to rebuild the city.
    Dan 9.5 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens.' "
    Weird, that quote does NOT say it takes 7 weeks for the city to be rebuilt. It states there are 7 weeks UNTIL an anointed one comes.

    I stand by the quote:
    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 obviously a long drawn out process that only *began* with the construction of the walls. The building of the walls is *not* the building of the entire city! It's just the beginning. The outer walls were necessary to protect workers while they rebuilt the city. This, according to Dan 9, would take 49 years! Appointing magistrates and judges would take much longer because it would require the building of residences and public buildings. These things are not as simple as building a wall!
    Problem for you IF this BEGAN with the building of the walls, as that happened in 445 BC, which by your counting is 12 years later!
    Further the city required people to live in it, which Nehemiah did by bringing a tithe in.
    A city continues to grow and be built and rebuilt etc ALL the time.
    However when a city is dedicated as complete then we can take it that it is a city in function.

    I just had a house built. It took over one year! Can you imagine how long it would take to build houses and public buildings in that day and age, with inferior technology?
    A house can, and should take a lot less than one year to build, especially a much simpler house.
    Nehemiah had an entire wall surrounding the entire city built in a few months!

    How long, for example, do you think it took for Herod to have the temple improved? I think Herod took about 15 years just to *improve* the temple. But after his death others took about 60 more years to complete the project!
    To rebuild the temple took around 2 to 3 years. After that was improvements, but the Temple was FULLY FUNCTIONAL and being used.

    No. Artaxerxes ruled over Nehemiah. Nehemiah could not have done this without a decree from Artaxerxes.
    Artaxerxes would NOT have made the decree EXCEPT there ALREADY was a decree by Cyrus.
    I take what scripture declares as my TRUTH.

    70 Weeks until X happens--not 70 Weeks + 300 Weeks until X happens. No need to belabor the point.
    It doesn't say 70 weeks until X happens.
    It actually says there are 70 weeks, but these 70 weeks are going to be split into 3 blocks and the first block will lead to this, and the next block will then go from this to this and the last block will be from this to this. SO these THREE blocks total 70 weeks, but the time is NOT from the start of the 70 weeks.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,118

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    No you are NOT disagreeing with me.
    I agree that the EMPHASIS is on the "people".
    However this does NOT allow you to IGNORE the FACT that there is a prince mentioned and that the personal pronoun "he" refers back to that prince. It does not refer back to some other he mentioned at some other time.
    No, the whole point is that we may indeed ignore the aforementioned "prince," since he has been deemphasized. "He" who makes a covenant refers back not to the "prince of the people," but rather, to the Anointed One who dies.

    This may sound strange, to revert back to someone who is said to have been killed. However, as I said before, I believe this is a parallelism, a reiteration of the same truth, that the destruction of the city follows the ministry of Messiah.

    1) Anointed One is killed, and the city's destruction follows.
    2) Anointed one confirms a covenant, and the abomination of desolation is set against the temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It is indeed mentioned following the death of an anointed one.
    However it is NOT part of the 70th week.
    However the STATEMENT in regards to the death of an anointed one does NOT say "In the 70th week" but states "After the 62 weeks" which means the angel is NOT putting the death in the 70th week at all.
    We read it differently. Dying after the 69th Week is to die in the 70th Week. To live and confirm a covenant in the 70th Week is to die in the 70th Week.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As an anointed one doesn't die in the 70th week so your argument remains empty.
    There is an anointed who dies AFTER the 62nd week, which you DEMAND means the 70th, yet the angel clearly could have said "in the 70th week" but chose a different statement altogether. This actually shows the 70 weeks are NOT continuous.
    This is an argument from silence, and proves nothing. The angel "could've" indicated the death took place in the 70th Week, but chose not to. But it has to be assumed that it takes place in the 70th Week because the same Messiah is still alive and confirming a covenant in the 70th Week. That the angel does say!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Incorrect - simple grammar rules and usage of language shows how farcical that claim is.
    The "he" who makes the covenant is the SAME "he" in the preceding verse, which is the prince of the people.
    The proof this is not "farcical" is the fact many, many Christians, including scholars, believe as I do. I derive my beliefs, in part, from them! It is farcical to you because it seems anything you don't agree with becomes, by default, a "farcical view."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope. I haven't said that. I have said "dabar" refers to the SPOKEN word. It is a word which has an EFFECT, it being a CAUSE.
    It is a DIFFERENT term to that used for a decree, which is WRITTEN.
    Now this is absurd, that a "word" cannot be used in the context of a "decree!"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You mean you are claiming they are interchangeable.

    Weird, that quote does NOT say it takes 7 weeks for the city to be rebuilt. It states there are 7 weeks UNTIL an anointed one comes.
    It's not weird. That's how many, many Christians have understood it, including scholars. That is, in part, where I derive my own beliefs from. You, on the other hand, seem to place less premium on previous beliefs that Christians have had. You try to study the history for yourself and come up with "original" views, which makes you a "Lone Ranger" theologian. That is a *colossal* ego trip!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Problem for you IF this BEGAN with the building of the walls, as that happened in 445 BC, which by your counting is 12 years later!
    Further the city required people to live in it, which Nehemiah did by bringing a tithe in.
    A city continues to grow and be built and rebuilt etc ALL the time.
    However when a city is dedicated as complete then we can take it that it is a city in function.
    We'll prove nothing by this line of argument. I'm basing my position on the passage, indicating the rebuilding of the city required 49 years. It's logical to me--not absolute proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    A house can, and should take a lot less than one year to build, especially a much simpler house.
    Nehemiah had an entire wall surrounding the entire city built in a few months!

    To rebuild the temple took around 2 to 3 years. After that was improvements, but the Temple was FULLY FUNCTIONAL and being used.
    If Herod's temple took many, many years to be completed, a city with few people would also take many, many years to be completed. More importantly, that's what the Scriptures say!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Artaxerxes would NOT have made the decree EXCEPT there ALREADY was a decree by Cyrus.
    I take what scripture declares as my TRUTH.
    Irrelevant. The key decree is Artaxerxes' decree. That's what got the job done. Earlier, the temple was built. This was the building of the entire city!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It doesn't say 70 weeks until X happens.
    It actually says there are 70 weeks, but these 70 weeks are going to be split into 3 blocks and the first block will lead to this, and the next block will then go from this to this and the last block will be from this to this. SO these THREE blocks total 70 weeks, but the time is NOT from the start of the 70 weeks.
    70 Weeks is a period of time! It is not given as a sum to an arithmetic problem!

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    No, the whole point is that we may indeed ignore the aforementioned "prince," since he has been deemphasized. "He" who makes a covenant refers back not to the "prince of the people," but rather, to the Anointed One who dies.
    The prince is NOT deemphasised, nor removed, he simply isn't the focus, his PEOPLE are the focus.
    In fact his people then makes it clear we are thinking about him.
    Also you cannot arbitrarily jump around to whomever you like for the personal pronoun. The anointed one was cut off, so he is no longer in focus, for the focu shifts to the city and sanctuary and the people of a prince.

    This may sound strange, to revert back to someone who is said to have been killed. However, as I said before, I believe this is a parallelism, a reiteration of the same truth, that the destruction of the city follows the ministry of Messiah.

    1) Anointed One is killed, and the city's destruction follows.
    2) Anointed one confirms a covenant, and the abomination of desolation is set against the temple.
    For parallelism to work then what is stated in one part MUST be true in the other.
    However in Dan 9:26 you agree this is NOT within the 70 weeks, however Dan 9:27 clearly IS part of the 70 weeks, THEREFORE it CANNOT be parallelism.

    We read it differently. Dying after the 69th Week is to die in the 70th Week. To live and confirm a covenant in the 70th Week is to die in the 70th Week.
    Nobody dies after the 69th week. Did you NOT read what the angel stated. The anointed one is cut off after the 62nd week. The angel has NOT addded the 7 weeks to the 62 weeks but is counting the time SEPARATELY.

    This is an argument from silence, and proves nothing. The angel "could've" indicated the death took place in the 70th Week, but chose not to. But it has to be assumed that it takes place in the 70th Week because the same Messiah is still alive and confirming a covenant in the 70th Week. That the angel does say!
    Not an argument from silence as the angle EXPLICITLY states the timing, and it is stated NOT in connection with the 70th week but in cxonnection with the 62nd week. You have NO explanation for why the angel would not say "an anointed one is cut off in the 70th week."

    The proof this is not "farcical" is the fact many, many Christians, including scholars, believe as I do. I derive my beliefs, in part, from them! It is farcical to you because it seems anything you don't agree with becomes, by default, a "farcical view."
    A billion people may believe the pope is infallible, but this doesn't stop it being a farcical view contrary to scripture.
    Any view that is valid MUST not be CONTRARY to scripture.
    People accept things because it is the best fit they can work out at the time.

    Now this is absurd, that a "word" cannot be used in the context of a "decree!"
    I know you really don;t like what words mean. However a word is spoken and a decree is written.

    It's not weird. That's how many, many Christians have understood it, including scholars. That is, in part, where I derive my own beliefs from. You, on the other hand, seem to place less premium on previous beliefs that Christians have had. You try to study the history for yourself and come up with "original" views, which makes you a "Lone Ranger" theologian. That is a *colossal* ego trip!
    It is indeed weird. I know that scholars of the past have taken the view for various reasons. Scholars can take weird viewpoints simply because they don;t have ANY viewpoint which fits, so they may count this a s the least weird. I read a book which looked at this and the author acknowledged that this view was UNSUSTAINABLE in light of what the words meant, but then they reasoned that there must be some date and he looked at 586 BC and then 537 BC and then 457 BC and concluded that it must be 457 BC as he couldn't connect the 7 weeks with either of the other two dates that he could see as being possible (connected with Jeremiah).
    All scholars are "Lone Rangers" who present their thesis and then ask for peers to show the errors in the actual thesis (and not in its originality). You have NO means to say my thesis doesn't fit either scripture or history, so your SOLE contention is that it is original.
    You basically are trying to argue that no one can discover truth anymore and that all of prophecy has ALREADY been fully understood and fully explained. However there are numerous problems with a lot of explanations.

    We'll prove nothing by this line of argument. I'm basing my position on the passage, indicating the rebuilding of the city required 49 years. It's logical to me--not absolute proof.
    It isn't logical so much as a necessity for you.
    The problems are many for that view:
    1) No history supports the timeline, yet clearly there should be something to delineate it.
    2) No scripture supports it, yet clearly something in scripture should support it.
    3) The actual prophecy doesn't support it, as it speaks of an anointed one coming after 7 weeks, and NOT a city being built after 7 weeks.

    If Herod's temple took many, many years to be completed, a city with few people would also take many, many years to be completed. More importantly, that's what the Scriptures say!
    Herod's temple took around two years. After that it was tweaks and refinements and additions. However as a FUNCTIONING temple, by which you could say, I am going to the temple, and the temple is there etc was ALL true shortly after it was built.
    The city of Seattle is NOT the same as it was 100 years ago, yet you cannot say there was no Seattle then, or that it wasn't built. I think it was settled in 1852 and was incorporated as a city in 1869. Clearly it is not the same now as then, but Seattle became a city within around 17 years.
    Jerusalem was a place which was resettled in 535 BC, but when Nehemiah came it still had gaps in its walls. Yet within a few months the walls were built and within 12 years Nehemiah ahd the city repopulated by having a tithe of those who lived outside moved in, and this is known from scripture.
    So scripture does NOT support 49 years anywhere.

    Irrelevant. The key decree is Artaxerxes' decree. That's what got the job done. Earlier, the temple was built. This was the building of the entire city!
    Which decree of Artaxerxes?
    The one recorded in Ezra (which is made by Cambyses II) or the letter given to Nehemiah in 445 BC?
    The decree in Ezra did NOT get the city built (regardless of who you think the Artaxerxes in Ezra refers to). This was a rehash of part of what Cyrus decreed, and was then restated by Darius.
    It was ONLY when Nehemiah got the walls built and then the city settled that the city was built and this by 432 BC.
    So even if 457 BC is relevant in any way, the fact is that the city was built by 432 BC.

    70 Weeks is a period of time! It is not given as a sum to an arithmetic problem!
    It is indeed a period of time, and it is SPLIT into THREE blocks of 7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week, each with their own starting points and ending.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    No, the whole point is that we may indeed ignore the aforementioned "prince," since he has been deemphasized. "He" who makes a covenant refers back not to the "prince of the people," but rather, to the Anointed One who dies.
    The prince is NOT deemphasised, nor removed, he simply isn't the focus, his PEOPLE are the focus.
    In fact his people then makes it clear we are thinking about him.
    Also you cannot arbitrarily jump around to whomever you like for the personal pronoun. The anointed one was cut off, so he is no longer in focus, for the focu shifts to the city and sanctuary and the people of a prince.

    This may sound strange, to revert back to someone who is said to have been killed. However, as I said before, I believe this is a parallelism, a reiteration of the same truth, that the destruction of the city follows the ministry of Messiah.

    1) Anointed One is killed, and the city's destruction follows.
    2) Anointed one confirms a covenant, and the abomination of desolation is set against the temple.
    For parallelism to work then what is stated in one part MUST be true in the other.
    However in Dan 9:26 you agree this is NOT within the 70 weeks, however Dan 9:27 clearly IS part of the 70 weeks, THEREFORE it CANNOT be parallelism.

    We read it differently. Dying after the 69th Week is to die in the 70th Week. To live and confirm a covenant in the 70th Week is to die in the 70th Week.
    Nobody dies after the 69th week. Did you NOT read what the angel stated. The anointed one is cut off after the 62nd week. The angel has NOT addded the 7 weeks to the 62 weeks but is counting the time SEPARATELY.

    This is an argument from silence, and proves nothing. The angel "could've" indicated the death took place in the 70th Week, but chose not to. But it has to be assumed that it takes place in the 70th Week because the same Messiah is still alive and confirming a covenant in the 70th Week. That the angel does say!
    Not an argument from silence as the angle EXPLICITLY states the timing, and it is stated NOT in connection with the 70th week but in cxonnection with the 62nd week. You have NO explanation for why the angel would not say "an anointed one is cut off in the 70th week."

    The proof this is not "farcical" is the fact many, many Christians, including scholars, believe as I do. I derive my beliefs, in part, from them! It is farcical to you because it seems anything you don't agree with becomes, by default, a "farcical view."
    A billion people may believe the pope is infallible, but this doesn't stop it being a farcical view contrary to scripture.
    Any view that is valid MUST not be CONTRARY to scripture.
    People accept things because it is the best fit they can work out at the time.

    Now this is absurd, that a "word" cannot be used in the context of a "decree!"
    I know you really don;t like what words mean. However a word is spoken and a decree is written.

    It's not weird. That's how many, many Christians have understood it, including scholars. That is, in part, where I derive my own beliefs from. You, on the other hand, seem to place less premium on previous beliefs that Christians have had. You try to study the history for yourself and come up with "original" views, which makes you a "Lone Ranger" theologian. That is a *colossal* ego trip!
    It is indeed weird. I know that scholars of the past have taken the view for various reasons. Scholars can take weird viewpoints simply because they don;t have ANY viewpoint which fits, so they may count this a s the least weird. I read a book which looked at this and the author acknowledged that this view was UNSUSTAINABLE in light of what the words meant, but then they reasoned that there must be some date and he looked at 586 BC and then 537 BC and then 457 BC and concluded that it must be 457 BC as he couldn't connect the 7 weeks with either of the other two dates that he could see as being possible (connected with Jeremiah).
    All scholars are "Lone Rangers" who present their thesis and then ask for peers to show the errors in the actual thesis (and not in its originality). You have NO means to say my thesis doesn't fit either scripture or history, so your SOLE contention is that it is original.
    You basically are trying to argue that no one can discover truth anymore and that all of prophecy has ALREADY been fully understood and fully explained. However there are numerous problems with a lot of explanations.

    We'll prove nothing by this line of argument. I'm basing my position on the passage, indicating the rebuilding of the city required 49 years. It's logical to me--not absolute proof.
    It isn't logical so much as a necessity for you.
    The problems are many for that view:
    1) No history supports the timeline, yet clearly there should be something to delineate it.
    2) No scripture supports it, yet clearly something in scripture should support it.
    3) The actual prophecy doesn't support it, as it speaks of an anointed one coming after 7 weeks, and NOT a city being built after 7 weeks.

    If Herod's temple took many, many years to be completed, a city with few people would also take many, many years to be completed. More importantly, that's what the Scriptures say!
    Herod's temple took around two years. After that it was tweaks and refinements and additions. However as a FUNCTIONING temple, by which you could say, I am going to the temple, and the temple is there etc was ALL true shortly after it was built.
    The city of Seattle is NOT the same as it was 100 years ago, yet you cannot say there was no Seattle then, or that it wasn't built. I think it was settled in 1852 and was incorporated as a city in 1869. Clearly it is not the same now as then, but Seattle became a city within around 17 years.
    Jerusalem was a place which was resettled in 535 BC, but when Nehemiah came it still had gaps in its walls. Yet within a few months the walls were built and within 12 years Nehemiah ahd the city repopulated by having a tithe of those who lived outside moved in, and this is known from scripture.
    So scripture does NOT support 49 years anywhere.

    Irrelevant. The key decree is Artaxerxes' decree. That's what got the job done. Earlier, the temple was built. This was the building of the entire city!
    Which decree of Artaxerxes?
    The one recorded in Ezra (which is made by Cambyses II) or the letter given to Nehemiah in 445 BC?
    The decree in Ezra did NOT get the city built (regardless of who you think the Artaxerxes in Ezra refers to). This was a rehash of part of what Cyrus decreed, and was then restated by Darius.
    It was ONLY when Nehemiah got the walls built and then the city settled that the city was built and this by 432 BC.
    So even if 457 BC is relevant in any way, the fact is that the city was built by 432 BC.

    70 Weeks is a period of time! It is not given as a sum to an arithmetic problem!
    It is indeed a period of time, and it is SPLIT into THREE blocks of 7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week, each with their own starting points and ending.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,118

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    The prince is NOT deemphasised, nor removed, he simply isn't the focus, his PEOPLE are the focus.
    In fact his people then makes it clear we are thinking about him.
    Also you cannot arbitrarily jump around to whomever you like for the personal pronoun. The anointed one was cut off, so he is no longer in focus, for the focu shifts to the city and sanctuary and the people of a prince.
    I'm *not* arbitrarily jumping around the prince. He is, in fact, de-emphasized! The following pronoun would go back to the Messiah--not to the "people of the prince to come."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    For parallelism to work then what is stated in one part MUST be true in the other.
    However in Dan 9:26 you agree this is NOT within the 70 weeks, however Dan 9:27 clearly IS part of the 70 weeks, THEREFORE it CANNOT be parallelism.
    I already showed you the parallels.
    1) death of Anointed One and destruction of city
    2) Anointed One's covenant and AoD

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nobody dies after the 69th week. Did you NOT read what the angel stated. The anointed one is cut off after the 62nd week. The angel has NOT addded the 7 weeks to the 62 weeks but is counting the time SEPARATELY.
    The 62nd Weeks follows the 1st 7 Weeks. So yes, it is after the 69th Week.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Not an argument from silence as the angle EXPLICITLY states the timing, and it is stated NOT in connection with the 70th week but in cxonnection with the 62nd week. You have NO explanation for why the angel would not say "an anointed one is cut off in the 70th week."
    Yes, I do have an explanation, although it is pure speculation. The angel simply did not want to reveal the connection between Jesus' death and the end of the temple worship at that time. It would've appeared that God *wanted* Israel to fail in their worship!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    A billion people may believe the pope is infallible, but this doesn't stop it being a farcical view contrary to scripture.
    Any view that is valid MUST not be CONTRARY to scripture.
    People accept things because it is the best fit they can work out at the time.
    Do you really think it's impossible for your beliefs and Scriptural truth to be at odds? The fact that many people disagree with you, and still believe the Scriptures, shows that their beliefs are not a farce. The Catholics hold Scripture and Tradition as equally valid approaches to truth. But belief in the 70 Weeks as fulfilled in Christ and in the fall of Jerusalem following is validated by Scriptural interpretation--not just by tradition.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I know you really don;t like what words mean. However a word is spoken and a decree is written.
    I certainly don't like how you think you own the meaning of words, and how you think only *your view* of a passage is the "Scriptural one."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It is indeed weird. I know that scholars of the past have taken the view for various reasons. Scholars can take weird viewpoints simply because they don;t have ANY viewpoint which fits, so they may count this a s the least weird. I read a book which looked at this and the author acknowledged that this view was UNSUSTAINABLE in light of what the words meant, but then they reasoned that there must be some date and he looked at 586 BC and then 537 BC and then 457 BC and concluded that it must be 457 BC as he couldn't connect the 7 weeks with either of the other two dates that he could see as being possible (connected with Jeremiah).
    All scholars are "Lone Rangers" who present their thesis and then ask for peers to show the errors in the actual thesis (and not in its originality). You have NO means to say my thesis doesn't fit either scripture or history, so your SOLE contention is that it is original.
    You basically are trying to argue that no one can discover truth anymore and that all of prophecy has ALREADY been fully understood and fully explained. However there are numerous problems with a lot of explanations.
    I have more problems with *your explanation* than with the 457 BC one. I have a very serious problem with your use of words in taking apart a 70 Week period of time and turning it into 3 separate time periods that add up to more than a 70 Week period!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It isn't logical so much as a necessity for you.
    The problems are many for that view:
    1) No history supports the timeline, yet clearly there should be something to delineate it.
    2) No scripture supports it, yet clearly something in scripture should support it.
    3) The actual prophecy doesn't support it, as it speaks of an anointed one coming after 7 weeks, and NOT a city being built after 7 weeks.
    You do this all the time. You merely assert things as if they are true, without any regard as to whether they may actually be true outside of your limited conceptual scope! In fact the 457 BC time frame does bring us up to the time of Christ. You think that by claiming the date of Christ's ministry may be off by a few years, in your view, that somehow this time frame doesn't work? How absurd!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Herod's temple took around two years. After that it was tweaks and refinements and additions. However as a FUNCTIONING temple, by which you could say, I am going to the temple, and the temple is there etc was ALL true shortly after it was built.
    The city of Seattle is NOT the same as it was 100 years ago, yet you cannot say there was no Seattle then, or that it wasn't built. I think it was settled in 1852 and was incorporated as a city in 1869. Clearly it is not the same now as then, but Seattle became a city within around 17 years.
    You're just proving my point. The argument is not just how long it would take a relatively few people to build an entire city, but more: How long did it actually take? The Scriptures say it took 49 years. I find that logical, since the population started small, and grew gradually. How long would it take to build a city under these conditions? It is logical to accept that it may have taken 49 years. I've never said it *had to take* 49 years!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Jerusalem was a place which was resettled in 535 BC, but when Nehemiah came it still had gaps in its walls. Yet within a few months the walls were built and within 12 years Nehemiah ahd the city repopulated by having a tithe of those who lived outside moved in, and this is known from scripture.
    So scripture does NOT support 49 years anywhere.
    The Scriptures say in Dan 9 that it took a Week, which we assume to be a week of years, or 49 years. So yes, the Scriptures do say the rebuilding of the city took 49 years!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Which decree of Artaxerxes?
    The one recorded in Ezra (which is made by Cambyses II) or the letter given to Nehemiah in 445 BC?
    457 BC, as I've said repeatedly. That's where we read about it, in Ezra 7. Nehemiah's work began later.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The decree in Ezra did NOT get the city built (regardless of who you think the Artaxerxes in Ezra refers to). This was a rehash of part of what Cyrus decreed, and was then restated by Darius.
    It was ONLY when Nehemiah got the walls built and then the city settled that the city was built and this by 432 BC.
    So even if 457 BC is relevant in any way, the fact is that the city was built by 432 BC.
    I don't believe the city was completely built until 49 years after 457 BC. The Scriptures *say so!*

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It is indeed a period of time, and it is SPLIT into THREE blocks of 7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week, each with their own starting points and ending.
    That is ridiculous. Your 3 blocks of time may add up to 70 Weeks, but this is not an arithmetic problem! Rather, this is a clock--a single set of time determining when something would happen in the future. The thing being predicted were the 6 things Messiah would accomplish, following, in his generation, by the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, the "abomination of desolation" set against the temple.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm *not* arbitrarily jumping around the prince. He is, in fact, de-emphasized! The following pronoun would go back to the Messiah--not to the "people of the prince to come."
    Nope, not de-emphasised. To de-emphasise means he is first emphasised.
    He is stated as being of great importance as he is the one whom the people are of.
    The following pronoun linguistically CANNOT go back to the anointed one, whose role ended by being cut off.

    I already showed you the parallels.
    1) death of Anointed One and destruction of city
    2) Anointed One's covenant and AoD
    I know you claim they are parallels and I just explained why that is IMPOSSIBLE as one occurs DURING the 70th week and the other does NOT occur DURING the 70 weeks.

    The 62nd Weeks follows the 1st 7 Weeks. So yes, it is after the 69th Week.
    Sorry, but not according to how the angle stated things.
    The angel stated this occurs AFTER the 62nd week, and you have NO explanation for that.
    If the angel had meant DURING the 70th week, or after 69 weeks then the angel would have said that. Instead the angel put the event OUTSIDE the 70 weeks being AFTER the 62 week block.

    Yes, I do have an explanation, although it is pure speculation. The angel simply did not want to reveal the connection between Jesus' death and the end of the temple worship at that time. It would've appeared that God *wanted* Israel to fail in their worship!
    Not an explanation. By saying during the 70th week or after 69 weeks would not have changed the destruction of the city and sanctuary.

    Do you really think it's impossible for your beliefs and Scriptural truth to be at odds? The fact that many people disagree with you, and still believe the Scriptures, shows that their beliefs are not a farce. The Catholics hold Scripture and Tradition as equally valid approaches to truth. But belief in the 70 Weeks as fulfilled in Christ and in the fall of Jerusalem following is validated by Scriptural interpretation--not just by tradition.
    It isn't about my view. The question is whether your argument is a valid basis for anything and it isn't.
    Scriptural interpretation does NOT validate the 70 weeks as fulfilled. However that is what this thread is arguing about.

    I certainly don't like how you think you own the meaning of words, and how you think only *your view* of a passage is the "Scriptural one."
    I am open to other interpretations, however words have meaning and to ignore the meaning of words means you have an excuse for anything and nothing.

    I have more problems with *your explanation* than with the 457 BC one. I have a very serious problem with your use of words in taking apart a 70 Week period of time and turning it into 3 separate time periods that add up to more than a 70 Week period!
    As my three blocks add up to 70 weeks then your claim is incorrect that I add up to more.
    You do have a serious problem in recognising that it is possible to have a period of time which is broken into chunks with events happening in between.
    Once you get past that problem of yours and recognise the alternative is valid then you may progress. Whilst you reject it then you are locked into one view only.
    The question is whether the alternative is a possibility, and whether language can be used like this.
    I have given you examples where it is.

    You do this all the time. You merely assert things as if they are true, without any regard as to whether they may actually be true outside of your limited conceptual scope! In fact the 457 BC time frame does bring us up to the time of Christ. You think that by claiming the date of Christ's ministry may be off by a few years, in your view, that somehow this time frame doesn't work? How absurd!
    I don;t merely assert things. I give explanations and details, and have done before and if you wish I can do so again for any point you think is incorrect.
    Further as this is stated as being 70 weeks therefore a total of 490 years, it is you who is being absurd by arguing it must be EXACTLY this, and then claiming, but it doesn't have to be exactly this.

    You're just proving my point. The argument is not just how long it would take a relatively few people to build an entire city, but more: How long did it actually take? The Scriptures say it took 49 years. I find that logical, since the population started small, and grew gradually. How long would it take to build a city under these conditions? It is logical to accept that it may have taken 49 years. I've never said it *had to take* 49 years!
    Nope, I TOTALLY disproved your point.
    What part of taking 17 years for a modern city to be built are you having trouble with?

    The Scriptures say in Dan 9 that it took a Week, which we assume to be a week of years, or 49 years. So yes, the Scriptures do say the rebuilding of the city took 49 years!
    Nope, scripture says 7 weeks and then the anointed one:
    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. (ESV)
    Now this clearly has a total of 7 weeks from the word to the anointed one and NOT to the rebuilding of the city.
    Might help to actually read the scripture and agree with it.

    457 BC, as I've said repeatedly. That's where we read about it, in Ezra 7. Nehemiah's work began later.
    Ezra 7 doesn't speak of 457 BC. However that is an argument perhaps for elsewhere.
    However that decree does NOT make any mention of rebuilding the city.

    I don't believe the city was completely built until 49 years after 457 BC. The Scriptures *say so!*
    Nope, scriptures does NOT say so. You need to find something that does.

    That is ridiculous. Your 3 blocks of time may add up to 70 Weeks, but this is not an arithmetic problem! Rather, this is a clock--a single set of time determining when something would happen in the future. The thing being predicted were the 6 things Messiah would accomplish, following, in his generation, by the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, the "abomination of desolation" set against the temple.
    It is indeed a PROPHETIC clock with certain things stated in that clock.
    If I start a stop watch and then have it count down for 7 minutes, then stop it for a while (perhaps while you have a drink of water), and then start it on for 62 minutes, and stop while you have a toilet break, and then start again and have it count 1 more minute. You will have exercised for a TOTAL of 70 minutes.
    This will have been a clock and been accurate, but it is ONLY in relation to what is stated in regards to those 70 minutes.
    The 70 weeks of Daniel 9 states what will happen DURING those periods of time and what they lead to.
    Jesus did NOT bring those 6 things into being for the Jewish people when He died and rose again.
    There is still much yet to happen.
    Note also that Dan 9 makes no mention of any generation.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm *not* arbitrarily jumping around the prince. He is, in fact, de-emphasized! The following pronoun would go back to the Messiah--not to the "people of the prince to come."
    Nope, not de-emphasised. To de-emphasise means he is first emphasised.
    He is stated as being of great importance as he is the one whom the people are of.
    The following pronoun linguistically CANNOT go back to the anointed one, whose role ended by being cut off.

    I already showed you the parallels.
    1) death of Anointed One and destruction of city
    2) Anointed One's covenant and AoD
    I know you claim they are parallels and I just explained why that is IMPOSSIBLE as one occurs DURING the 70th week and the other does NOT occur DURING the 70 weeks.

    The 62nd Weeks follows the 1st 7 Weeks. So yes, it is after the 69th Week.
    Sorry, but not according to how the angle stated things.
    The angel stated this occurs AFTER the 62nd week, and you have NO explanation for that.
    If the angel had meant DURING the 70th week, or after 69 weeks then the angel would have said that. Instead the angel put the event OUTSIDE the 70 weeks being AFTER the 62 week block.

    Yes, I do have an explanation, although it is pure speculation. The angel simply did not want to reveal the connection between Jesus' death and the end of the temple worship at that time. It would've appeared that God *wanted* Israel to fail in their worship!
    Not an explanation. By saying during the 70th week or after 69 weeks would not have changed the destruction of the city and sanctuary.

    Do you really think it's impossible for your beliefs and Scriptural truth to be at odds? The fact that many people disagree with you, and still believe the Scriptures, shows that their beliefs are not a farce. The Catholics hold Scripture and Tradition as equally valid approaches to truth. But belief in the 70 Weeks as fulfilled in Christ and in the fall of Jerusalem following is validated by Scriptural interpretation--not just by tradition.
    It isn't about my view. The question is whether your argument is a valid basis for anything and it isn't.
    Scriptural interpretation does NOT validate the 70 weeks as fulfilled. However that is what this thread is arguing about.

    I certainly don't like how you think you own the meaning of words, and how you think only *your view* of a passage is the "Scriptural one."
    I am open to other interpretations, however words have meaning and to ignore the meaning of words means you have an excuse for anything and nothing.

    I have more problems with *your explanation* than with the 457 BC one. I have a very serious problem with your use of words in taking apart a 70 Week period of time and turning it into 3 separate time periods that add up to more than a 70 Week period!
    As my three blocks add up to 70 weeks then your claim is incorrect that I add up to more.
    You do have a serious problem in recognising that it is possible to have a period of time which is broken into chunks with events happening in between.
    Once you get past that problem of yours and recognise the alternative is valid then you may progress. Whilst you reject it then you are locked into one view only.
    The question is whether the alternative is a possibility, and whether language can be used like this.
    I have given you examples where it is.

    You do this all the time. You merely assert things as if they are true, without any regard as to whether they may actually be true outside of your limited conceptual scope! In fact the 457 BC time frame does bring us up to the time of Christ. You think that by claiming the date of Christ's ministry may be off by a few years, in your view, that somehow this time frame doesn't work? How absurd!
    I don;t merely assert things. I give explanations and details, and have done before and if you wish I can do so again for any point you think is incorrect.
    Further as this is stated as being 70 weeks therefore a total of 490 years, it is you who is being absurd by arguing it must be EXACTLY this, and then claiming, but it doesn't have to be exactly this.

    You're just proving my point. The argument is not just how long it would take a relatively few people to build an entire city, but more: How long did it actually take? The Scriptures say it took 49 years. I find that logical, since the population started small, and grew gradually. How long would it take to build a city under these conditions? It is logical to accept that it may have taken 49 years. I've never said it *had to take* 49 years!
    Nope, I TOTALLY disproved your point.
    What part of taking 17 years for a modern city to be built are you having trouble with?

    The Scriptures say in Dan 9 that it took a Week, which we assume to be a week of years, or 49 years. So yes, the Scriptures do say the rebuilding of the city took 49 years!
    Nope, scripture says 7 weeks and then the anointed one:
    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. (ESV)
    Now this clearly has a total of 7 weeks from the word to the anointed one and NOT to the rebuilding of the city.
    Might help to actually read the scripture and agree with it.

    457 BC, as I've said repeatedly. That's where we read about it, in Ezra 7. Nehemiah's work began later.
    Ezra 7 doesn't speak of 457 BC. However that is an argument perhaps for elsewhere.
    However that decree does NOT make any mention of rebuilding the city.

    I don't believe the city was completely built until 49 years after 457 BC. The Scriptures *say so!*
    Nope, scriptures does NOT say so. You need to find something that does.

    That is ridiculous. Your 3 blocks of time may add up to 70 Weeks, but this is not an arithmetic problem! Rather, this is a clock--a single set of time determining when something would happen in the future. The thing being predicted were the 6 things Messiah would accomplish, following, in his generation, by the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, the "abomination of desolation" set against the temple.
    It is indeed a PROPHETIC clock with certain things stated in that clock.
    If I start a stop watch and then have it count down for 7 minutes, then stop it for a while (perhaps while you have a drink of water), and then start it on for 62 minutes, and stop while you have a toilet break, and then start again and have it count 1 more minute. You will have exercised for a TOTAL of 70 minutes.
    This will have been a clock and been accurate, but it is ONLY in relation to what is stated in regards to those 70 minutes.
    The 70 weeks of Daniel 9 states what will happen DURING those periods of time and what they lead to.
    Jesus did NOT bring those 6 things into being for the Jewish people when He died and rose again.
    There is still much yet to happen.
    Note also that Dan 9 makes no mention of any generation.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,118

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Nope, not de-emphasised. To de-emphasise means he is first emphasised.
    He is stated as being of great importance as he is the one whom the people are of.
    The following pronoun linguistically CANNOT go back to the anointed one, whose role ended by being cut off.
    The point is, if vss. 26 and 27 form a parallelism, then Messiah can be cut off in vs. 26 and be re-mentioned in vs. 27. I think we've now successfully exhausted this subject?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I know you claim they are parallels and I just explained why that is IMPOSSIBLE as one occurs DURING the 70th week and the other does NOT occur DURING the 70 weeks.
    The Messiah's covenant and the Messiah's death both occur in the 70th Week. The destruction of Jerusalem and the AoD both follow the 70 Weeks. This is a parallelism.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Sorry, but not according to how the angle stated things.
    The angel stated this occurs AFTER the 62nd week, and you have NO explanation for that.
    Yes, I do have an explanation for why the 7 weeks is mentioned first, and then the 62 weeks. It is because the 7 weeks is the time for the rebuilding of the city. The 62 weeks is a period of waiting following the rebuilding of the city, until the Messiah begins his ministry, in order to fulfill the 6 things. So it is *after* the 69 weeks that Messiah appears, following which the city falls. And then we are re-told the account in different words, that the Messiah makes a covenant, causing the worship to fail, and this leads to the fall of the temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If the angel had meant DURING the 70th week, or after 69 weeks then the angel would have said that. Instead the angel put the event OUTSIDE the 70 weeks being AFTER the 62 week block.
    Not an explanation. By saying during the 70th week or after 69 weeks would not have changed the destruction of the city and sanctuary.
    It isn't about my view. The question is whether your argument is a valid basis for anything and it isn't.
    Scriptural interpretation does NOT validate the 70 weeks as fulfilled. However that is what this thread is arguing about.
    I am open to other interpretations, however words have meaning and to ignore the meaning of words means you have an excuse for anything and nothing.

    As my three blocks add up to 70 weeks then your claim is incorrect that I add up to more.
    Not what I said. I said this is not an arithmetic problem. This is the 3rd time I've told you that. By placing spaces of time between the 3 blocks, the *entire period* would add up to more than a 70 Week period. That would effectively *destroy* the 70 Week period as a time clock for the events being predicted.

    This is a major reason why I cannot accept your argument. If you think my arguments play with words, how do you think I see what you're doing? You destroy the very basis for this prophecy, which was to serve as a *time clock* for the coming of Messiah! It is one of the most amazing Messianic prophecies in all the Bible, and you obliterate it!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You do have a serious problem in recognising that it is possible to have a period of time which is broken into chunks with events happening in between.
    Once you get past that problem of yours and recognise the alternative is valid then you may progress. Whilst you reject it then you are locked into one view only.
    The question is whether the alternative is a possibility, and whether language can be used like this.
    I have given you examples where it is.
    The pot calling the kettle black?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I don;t merely assert things. I give explanations and details, and have done before and if you wish I can do so again for any point you think is incorrect.
    Further as this is stated as being 70 weeks therefore a total of 490 years, it is you who is being absurd by arguing it must be EXACTLY this, and then claiming, but it doesn't have to be exactly this.

    Nope, I TOTALLY disproved your point.
    What part of taking 17 years for a modern city to be built are you having trouble with?
    I explained this already. The time period given *by the Bible* was 49 years! And 49 years is completely logical for the building of a city that had been destroyed, and whose population gradually trickled back in. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a modern city!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope, scripture says 7 weeks and then the anointed one:
    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. (ESV)
    You know what's strange about this? You completely dismiss the 70 Weeks period as a time clock, and now wish to assert that the 7 Weeks is a time clock!

    I have an explanation, however, for the 7 Weeks period until the Messiah comes. It is not being used as a time clock at all. Rather, it is being used as a preliminary requirement in order for the Messiah to come. The Messiah is actually stated, later in the prophecy, to take place only after another period of waiting--a period of 62 Weeks.

    So yes, the Messiah comes after 7 Weeks. But it is only after another block of time following the 7 Weeks. It's just that the 7 Weeks was essential for the Messiah to come, inasmuch as the city had to be rebuilt in order for him to come!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Now this clearly has a total of 7 weeks from the word to the anointed one and NOT to the rebuilding of the city.
    Might help to actually read the scripture and agree with it.
    It is 7 Weeks from the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 BC to the completion of the city's rebuilding project.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Ezra 7 doesn't speak of 457 BC. However that is an argument perhaps for elsewhere.
    However that decree does NOT make any mention of rebuilding the city.
    As you know, the decree of Cyrus to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple was reasserted by Darius and Artaxerxes. By the time of Artaxerxes the temple worship only need refining, and the city remained to be rebuilt.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope, scriptures does NOT say so. You need to find something that does.
    This is the 2nd time I'm telling you this. The Scriptures declare that it would be 7 Weeks (49 years) before the city rebuilding project was completed. You keep saying the Scriptures don't say this, but they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It is indeed a PROPHETIC clock with certain things stated in that clock.
    If I start a stop watch and then have it count down for 7 minutes, then stop it for a while (perhaps while you have a drink of water), and then start it on for 62 minutes, and stop while you have a toilet break, and then start again and have it count 1 more minute. You will have exercised for a TOTAL of 70 minutes.
    This will have been a clock and been accurate, but it is ONLY in relation to what is stated in regards to those 70 minutes.
    The 70 weeks of Daniel 9 states what will happen DURING those periods of time and what they lead to.
    Jesus did NOT bring those 6 things into being for the Jewish people when He died and rose again.
    There is still much yet to happen.
    Note also that Dan 9 makes no mention of any generation.
    I don't need to hear this anymore. It's ridiculous. The 70 Weeks is a *time clock.* Dividing it up into 3 periods doesn't change this. But adding time in between the 3 time periods does change things. It destroys the use of the 70 Weeks as a time clock leading to Messiah's coming completely.

    You don't need to repeat this. I understood your argument the first time. Repeating it doesn't make it any more convincing, and you're not adding anything to the argument. It still sounds absurd to me.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The point is, if vss. 26 and 27 form a parallelism, then Messiah can be cut off in vs. 26 and be re-mentioned in vs. 27. I think we've now successfully exhausted this subject?
    As these CANNOT be a form of parallelism due to the FACT that verse 26 speaks of events OUTSIDE the 70 weeks and verse 27 speaks ONLY of events in the 70th week, so the point is that you have NO point.
    Further even if this was parallelism, the "he" would STILL be pointing to the prince of the people.

    The Messiah's covenant and the Messiah's death both occur in the 70th Week. The destruction of Jerusalem and the AoD both follow the 70 Weeks. This is a parallelism.
    The desolator is made desolate in the 70th week. Therefore the Abomination in verse 27 is DURING the 70th week and is NOT after.

    This is the 2nd time I'm telling you this. The Scriptures declare that it would be 7 Weeks (49 years) before the city rebuilding project was completed. You keep saying the Scriptures don't say this, but they do.
    And for the second time of telling you, there is NO scripture which states that ANYWHERE in the ENTIRE Bible.
    The prophecy given to Daniel states (and I quoted it for you) in chapter 9 verse 25 that the 7 weeks is from the Word UNTIL the anointed one comes.

    So if you have a SINGLE scripture which says that the 7 weeks speaks of the time the city takes to rebuild, then please provide it.
    If you refuse to read what is written in scripture there can be no truth.
    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. (ESV)

    Now if you want to know the period of the 62 weeks, that is FROM it being rebuilt to an anointed one.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,118

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    As these CANNOT be a form of parallelism due to the FACT that verse 26 speaks of events OUTSIDE the 70 weeks and verse 27 speaks ONLY of events in the 70th week, so the point is that you have NO point.
    Further even if this was parallelism, the "he" would STILL be pointing to the prince of the people.
    You're either arguing your own point or against my point. And if you're arguing against my point, then you're not being accurate.

    My point is that vss. 26 and 27 form a parallelism. The Messiah dies and the Messiah makes a covenant is one half of the parallelism. They are both within the 70th Week!

    The other half of the parallelism is the destruction of the city and the temple, which *follows* the death of Messiah. Therefore, the destruction of Jerusalem is *outside of* the 70th Week! And this is then explained to be the AoD, again following after the covenant, and death, of Messiah.

    This is a perfect parallelism. Why you continue to say Messiah's life and death are outside of the 70th Week I can't fathom, unless you're simply restating your own position? In my position, vs. 26 covers both events within the 70th Week and events beyond the 70th Week. And vs. 27 does the same. That's what forms the parallelism!

    So if you're just going to keep restating your own position, instead of dealing with my position, I think we're done here? You just continue to spread confusion, rather than deal with our differences.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The desolator is made desolate in the 70th week. Therefore the Abomination in verse 27 is DURING the 70th week and is NOT after.
    That may be your position, but it isn't mine. I'm fine with you believing what you will. I'm just arguing my own position. And you have not successfully disqualified that.

    My position is not that the desolator is made desolate in the 70th Week. My position is that Messiah makes a covenant, and dies, in the 70th Week. And the desolation of the city and the temple, the AoD, takes place only *after* the 70th Week, and after the death of Messiah. Now that we've established our positions, we should be able to agree to disagree?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    And for the second time of telling you, there is NO scripture which states that ANYWHERE in the ENTIRE Bible.
    The prophecy given to Daniel states (and I quoted it for you) in chapter 9 verse 25 that the 7 weeks is from the Word UNTIL the anointed one comes.
    You know, brother, you have a *very big problem,* because you don't seem to be able to differentiate between a difference of opinion and arguing someone else's position. I may not agree with you, but I can argue with your own position based on what you believe! You don't seem to be able to do that! When you are arguing *against my position* you should be able to base your own arguments against my position on the consistency or inconsistency of what I believe--not just restate your own position as an alternative!

    I've told you repeatedly that I believe the 7 Weeks is a time clock indicating how long it would take for the city of Jerusalem to be rebuilt, following Artaxerxes' decree. This is *my position.* Based on what I believe, this assumes that Scripture indicates the rebuilding project took 49 years! Assuming my position, this is a *Bible-based* position!

    I could care less if you don't believe that. The point is, my position assumes a *Bible-based* position. I'd be happy to acknowledge that you have a Bible-based position. I just don't agree with your interpretation of that "Bible-based position."

    But the fact you cannot acknowledge that my position is Bible-based indicates you cannot debate using anyone else's position--only your own position. Or, if you do debate somebody else's position, you vacillate between arguing the consistency of that position and your own position, confusing the two.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So if you have a SINGLE scripture which says that the 7 weeks speaks of the time the city takes to rebuild, then please provide it.
    I did. The Scripture I provided is based on *my position*--not yours!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If you refuse to read what is written in scripture there can be no truth.
    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. (ESV)
    Thanks. You just quoted it for me. It says that from Artaxerxes' decree to rebuild the city, based on Cyrus' decree, the city would be rebuilt within a period of 49 years! That is a *Bible-based position!* You have to assume *my position,* and check it for consistency! If you simply disagree with my interpretation, let's agree to disagree--not just restate our own positions ad infinitum! My purpose, as always, is to hypothesize about an interpretation, and then check it for consistency--not just disagree with it, favoring another viewpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Now if you want to know the period of the 62 weeks, that is FROM it being rebuilt to an anointed one.
    You are unable to argue another's position--only your own. You are incorrigible. If you want to debate this further, you're going to have to argue my position from the standpoint of what I believe. You may not agree, but you can't just restate your own position and at the same time try to disqualify my own position. That's like saying, "You're wrong, because my position is different than your position." That doesn't argue what's wrong about my position--only that you hold a different one.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You're either arguing your own point or against my point. And if you're arguing against my point, then you're not being accurate.
    My point is that vss. 26 and 27 form a parallelism. The Messiah dies and the Messiah makes a covenant is one half of the parallelism. They are both within the 70th Week!
    I am being ENTIRELY accurate. You seem to struggle with that. Don;t know how to help you.

    The other half of the parallelism is the destruction of the city and the temple, which *follows* the death of Messiah. Therefore, the destruction of Jerusalem is *outside of* the 70th Week! And this is then explained to be the AoD, again following after the covenant, and death, of Messiah.
    Verse 27 is ENTIRELY within the 70th week. There is NOTHING beyond it. When the 70th week ends, then that is the end for Daniel's people and all 6 statements in verse 24 will be true.
    However verse 26 has an event which is OUTSIDE the 70th week. Therefore it is NOT parallel.

    This is a perfect parallelism. Why you continue to say Messiah's life and death are outside of the 70th Week I can't fathom, unless you're simply restating your own position? In my position, vs. 26 covers both events within the 70th Week and events beyond the 70th Week. And vs. 27 does the same. That's what forms the parallelism!
    As the anointed one's death is NOT within the 70 weeks, but stated as being AFTER the 62nd week, I am not sure you can be helped (again).
    However there is no anointed one's death in verse 27 only the death of the desolator.

    My position is not that the desolator is made desolate in the 70th Week. My position is that Messiah makes a covenant, and dies, in the 70th Week. And the desolation of the city and the temple, the AoD, takes place only *after* the 70th Week, and after the death of Messiah. Now that we've established our positions, we should be able to agree to disagree?
    As this is what is stated, then what more can be said?
    Are you claiming the desolator dies in 70 AD?
    You are saying it is parallel?
    When are you having the desolator die in this prophecy?

    You know, brother, you have a *very big problem,* because you don't seem to be able to differentiate between a difference of opinion and arguing someone else's position. I may not agree with you, but I can argue with your own position based on what you believe! You don't seem to be able to do that! When you are arguing *against my position* you should be able to base your own arguments against my position on the consistency or inconsistency of what I believe--not just restate your own position as an alternative!
    As I have been arguing about the INCONSISTENCY within YOUR position, your claim is again wrong.

    I've told you repeatedly that I believe the 7 Weeks is a time clock indicating how long it would take for the city of Jerusalem to be rebuilt, following Artaxerxes' decree. This is *my position.* Based on what I believe, this assumes that Scripture indicates the rebuilding project took 49 years! Assuming my position, this is a *Bible-based* position!
    I know you have stated that.
    I have highlighted that this does NOT match a SINGLE scripture. So I am waiting for you to provide a scripture which says that. So in order to understand your position it requires you providing a scripture which indicates what you claim. Your position is NOT a Bible-based position.

    I could care less if you don't believe that. The point is, my position assumes a *Bible-based* position. I'd be happy to acknowledge that you have a Bible-based position. I just don't agree with your interpretation of that "Bible-based position."

    But the fact you cannot acknowledge that my position is Bible-based indicates you cannot debate using anyone else's position--only your own position. Or, if you do debate somebody else's position, you vacillate between arguing the consistency of that position and your own position, confusing the two.
    You mean when I take your view as hypothetically possible and then see if it works and find it doesn't then this is somehow vacillating?
    To have a Bible-based position means you must have a position which has an ACTUAL scripture saying what you claim.

    I did. The Scripture I provided is based on *my position*--not yours!
    Not yet you haven't. Please put it and underline the words for people who struggle to follow your line of reasoning.

    Thanks. You just quoted it for me. It says that from Artaxerxes' decree to rebuild the city, based on Cyrus' decree, the city would be rebuilt within a period of 49 years! That is a *Bible-based position!* You have to assume *my position,* and check it for consistency! If you simply disagree with my interpretation, let's agree to disagree--not just restate our own positions ad infinitum! My purpose, as always, is to hypothesize about an interpretation, and then check it for consistency--not just disagree with it, favoring another viewpoint.
    It does not say anything even close to what you have just put.
    Here it is again:
    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. (ESV)

    Very clearly this says, from one thing to the coming of another thing will be seven weeks. So for you to be correct it would be saying:
    From the word to rebuild to its fulfillment will be seven weeks.

    However it does NOT say that. It says:
    From the word to rebuild to the coming of the anointed one will be seven weeks.

    The statement is very clear and says the anointed one comes after seven weeks.
    If you are unable to read a sentence like this and understand it, then what hope of anything?

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,118

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I am being ENTIRELY accurate. You seem to struggle with that. Don;t know how to help you.
    Verse 27 is ENTIRELY within the 70th week. There is NOTHING beyond it. When the 70th week ends, then that is the end for Daniel's people and all 6 statements in verse 24 will be true.
    However verse 26 has an event which is OUTSIDE the 70th week. Therefore it is NOT parallel.
    Again, you only argue your own position--not the inconsistency of my position. This is neither a debate nor a discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As the anointed one's death is NOT within the 70 weeks, but stated as being AFTER the 62nd week, I am not sure you can be helped (again).
    However there is no anointed one's death in verse 27 only the death of the desolator.
    My position is that the passage indicates the Anointed One dies *after* the 62nd Weeks, and in the 70th Week, following his confirmation of a covenant.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As this is what is stated, then what more can be said?
    Are you claiming the desolator dies in 70 AD?
    No, I said nothing at all about the death of a desolator.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You are saying it is parallel?
    When are you having the desolator die in this prophecy?
    I said nothing about the death of a desolator.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As I have been arguing about the INCONSISTENCY within YOUR position, your claim is again wrong.

    I know you have stated that.
    I have highlighted that this does NOT match a SINGLE scripture. So I am waiting for you to provide a scripture which says that. So in order to understand your position it requires you providing a scripture which indicates what you claim. Your position is NOT a Bible-based position.

    You mean when I take your view as hypothetically possible and then see if it works and find it doesn't then this is somehow vacillating?
    To have a Bible-based position means you must have a position which has an ACTUAL scripture saying what you claim.

    Not yet you haven't. Please put it and underline the words for people who struggle to follow your line of reasoning.

    It does not say anything even close to what you have just put.
    Here it is again:
    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. (ESV)

    Very clearly this says, from one thing to the coming of another thing will be seven weeks. So for you to be correct it would be saying:
    From the word to rebuild to its fulfillment will be seven weeks.
    Finally you get it?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    However it does NOT say that. It says:
    From the word to rebuild to the coming of the anointed one will be seven weeks.
    It is saying that from the word to rebuild Jerusalem there will be a seven weeks period, which implies that the city will be rebuilt during that time. This is prerequisite to the coming of Messiah--the city needs to be rebuilt. No, this is not your rendition, but it is mine, as I so clearly told you. And that is why in some versions we read that there will be 7 Weeks *and* 62 Weeks until the coming of Messiah. It explains that not only is the 7 Weeks rebuilding project requisite to the coming of Messiah, but there will also be another 62 Weeks waiting period until Messiah actually arrives.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The statement is very clear and says the anointed one comes after seven weeks.
    If you are unable to read a sentence like this and understand it, then what hope of anything?
    You act naïve, and yet you know that not only I but many others, including Bible scholars, read this the way I do. Quit pretending it has anything to do with failure to understand this is a biblical basis for using the 70 Weeks as a time clock for the coming of Messiah and for the destruction of Jerusalem following.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Again, you only argue your own position--not the inconsistency of my position. This is neither a debate nor a discussion.
    NO I was dealing with YOUR claim that verse 26 and 27 are parallel. That is NOT my position but yours. So I look at whether these two verses can be parallel and discover they CANNOT be. This is an argument about YOUR position ONLY.

    My position is that the passage indicates the Anointed One dies *after* the 62nd Weeks, and in the 70th Week, following his confirmation of a covenant.
    And? To support your position we have to look at what is stated in the scripture. This is what is being looked at.

    No, I said nothing at all about the death of a desolator.
    That is stated as part of the 70th week.

    It is saying that from the word to rebuild Jerusalem there will be a seven weeks period, which implies that the city will be rebuilt during that time. This is prerequisite to the coming of Messiah--the city needs to be rebuilt. No, this is not your rendition, but it is mine, as I so clearly told you. And that is why in some versions we read that there will be 7 Weeks *and* 62 Weeks until the coming of Messiah. It explains that not only is the 7 Weeks rebuilding project requisite to the coming of Messiah, but there will also be another 62 Weeks waiting period until Messiah actually arrives.
    No it does NOT imply that the city will be built in that time.
    It very much makes NO such implication at all.
    What it CLEARLY and simply states is from a word being given for the city to be rebuilt there is period of 7 weeks before an anointed one comes. It is in fact the anointed one who then gets the citry built, however that is another point entirely.
    The prerequisite given is for the word to go forth BEFORE the anointed one comes, NOT that the city is rebuilt.
    The 62 weeks is in connection with the city, and starts from the time it is rebuilt.

    You act naïve, and yet you know that not only I but many others, including Bible scholars, read this the way I do. Quit pretending it has anything to do with failure to understand this is a biblical basis for using the 70 Weeks as a time clock for the coming of Messiah and for the destruction of Jerusalem following.
    I am not acting naive, I am simply noting what is ACTUALLY stated, and which you seem to struggle to read.
    People in history have got this wrong, and you are simply parroting them without reading what is stated.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Again, you only argue your own position--not the inconsistency of my position. This is neither a debate nor a discussion.
    NO I was dealing with YOUR claim that verse 26 and 27 are parallel. That is NOT my position but yours. So I look at whether these two verses can be parallel and discover they CANNOT be. This is an argument about YOUR position ONLY.

    My position is that the passage indicates the Anointed One dies *after* the 62nd Weeks, and in the 70th Week, following his confirmation of a covenant.
    And? To support your position we have to look at what is stated in the scripture. This is what is being looked at.

    No, I said nothing at all about the death of a desolator.
    That is stated as part of the 70th week.

    It is saying that from the word to rebuild Jerusalem there will be a seven weeks period, which implies that the city will be rebuilt during that time. This is prerequisite to the coming of Messiah--the city needs to be rebuilt. No, this is not your rendition, but it is mine, as I so clearly told you. And that is why in some versions we read that there will be 7 Weeks *and* 62 Weeks until the coming of Messiah. It explains that not only is the 7 Weeks rebuilding project requisite to the coming of Messiah, but there will also be another 62 Weeks waiting period until Messiah actually arrives.
    No it does NOT imply that the city will be built in that time.
    It very much makes NO such implication at all.
    What it CLEARLY and simply states is from a word being given for the city to be rebuilt there is period of 7 weeks before an anointed one comes. It is in fact the anointed one who then gets the citry built, however that is another point entirely.
    The prerequisite given is for the word to go forth BEFORE the anointed one comes, NOT that the city is rebuilt.
    The 62 weeks is in connection with the city, and starts from the time it is rebuilt.

    You act naïve, and yet you know that not only I but many others, including Bible scholars, read this the way I do. Quit pretending it has anything to do with failure to understand this is a biblical basis for using the 70 Weeks as a time clock for the coming of Messiah and for the destruction of Jerusalem following.
    I am not acting naive, I am simply noting what is ACTUALLY stated, and which you seem to struggle to read.
    People in history have got this wrong, and you are simply parroting them without reading what is stated.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,544
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    I think you guys need to take your spirited debate elsewhere. The last 18 replies have you guys going back and forth. Thanks for your input!!!

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,118

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    NO I was dealing with YOUR claim that verse 26 and 27 are parallel. That is NOT my position but yours. So I look at whether these two verses can be parallel and discover they CANNOT be. This is an argument about YOUR position ONLY.
    People on this forum have grown tired of our bickering, brother. Thanks for the conversation. Maybe we can bring it back again later, when others don't feel it has gone on too long?

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
  •