69th week, does anyone here know....

[Douggg]

.....when/who begin the concept of that in Daniel 9:26-27, Jesus's three and a half year of ministry (claimed by the theory adherents) constituted the first 3 1/2 years of the final 7 years?

Please don't say the bible, if you hold to that position. I think it came from the SDA, but I am not sure. I am having a discussion at another board, and my point is that Daniel 9:26 says that the messiah was cut off at the end of the 69th week, not after 69.5 weeks. After 483 years (the end of the 69th week), Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey hailed as King Messiah. 4 days later he was crucified. The full 7 years of the 70th week is left.

year 1
year 2
year 3
year 4
year 5
year 6
year 7 1st week of years complete
.
.
.
.
.
year 7, 68th weeks of years complete.
year 1
year 2
year 3
year 4
year 5
year 6
year 7, 69th weeks of years complete - Daniel 9:26 says the messiah is cutoff here.
year 1
year 2
year 3
year 3 1/2 - 69.5 weeks of years complete - you guys say the messiah cutoff here.
year 4
year 5
year 6
year 7, 70th weeks of years compete

Doug L.

[jgilberAZ]

Not that I hold to that position, but ... Daniel doesn't say "at the end of the 69th week," he says "AFTER 69 weeks."

After means after, which "could" be at the very end of the 69th week, first day of the 70th week. But, it cannot mean any time within the 60 weeks. After means after. After monday comes tuesday. If I say I will be there after monday, I won't be arriving on monday. It might be 00:01 Tuesday morning. But, it cannot be any part of Monday.

[The Orange Mailman]

Douggg-

I don't rightly know the answer to your question, but I point you in the direction of Keil and Delitzsch who wrote in the 1800s. If you could get your hands on their commentary on Daniel, that would be a good start. They wrote from a PreMillennial perspective in the day when A-Millennialism and Post-Millennialism were the norm. Most likely they will interact with positions that were prevalent around that time.

I will say that from what I gather, it was not uncommon in those days to view the one who confirms the covenant in Daniel 9:27 as Christ. Historicism was the mainline Protestant view a couple hundred years ago.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

[Yogi]

The crucial difference is how you look at the "coming" of the Messiah. I mean, do you think His "coming" was at the "triumphal entry"? Or was it when Jesus said He fulfilled the Messianic coming proclamation in Isaiah?

Personally, I'd rely on the words of Jesus any day. He declared He had come as the Messiah, anyone care to tell Him He didn't? It seems even those in the Synagogue were able to figure it out. Is it a coincidence that about half way through a "seven" after this He was cut off? Not likely.

So too answer the OP, I think OM got it right. For quite a while early on people simply viewed it as though the prophecy was centered upon Jesus.

[watching]

Hi Douggg,

Please don't say the bible, if you hold to that position.

Why is it so hard to believe that some people actually derive their understanding of the bible, from reading what the bible, itself, ACTUALLY SAYS, instead of relying on someone else to TELL THEM WHAT THE BIBLE SUPPOSEDLY SAYS?

In other words, what's wrong with reading the bible for yourself, rather than reading someone else's interpretation of the bible, instead?

.......and my point is that Daniel 9:26 says that the messiah was cut off at the end of the 69th week,.......

So your point is that Daniel 9:26 says that the Messiah was cut off at the end of 69 weeks, even though what Daniel 9:26 really says is after 69 weeks?

not after 69.5 weeks.

No argument there. Who is claiming that it says after 69.5 weeks?

After 483 years (the end of the 69th week), Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey hailed as King Messiah.

First of all, why are you saying "after" 483 years, at the point where the text DOES NOT SAY AFTER????

But yet where it DOES SAY AFTER, you're saying that it doesn't say after but rather, "at the end."



Second of all, the only way that the time of the Messiah's cutting off (Holy Week), could, instead, be construed, as the time of the Messiah's arrival, is if Sir Robert Anderson's calculations were, in fact, ACCURATE TO THE DAY of Palm Sunday, but, contrary to popular teaching, they unfortunately (for him), WERE NOT.

[amessenger4god]

Actually, the dates line up quite nicely.

Artaxerxes began to reign in 464 BC. In his 20th year he issued the decree (444 BC). The decree was issued on March 5th.

Precisely 173,880 days later (i.e. 483 360-day years, exactly), Jesus FIRST accepted the title Messiah (remember that He told his disciples not to call Him that until the time came... and the time came when He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey). March 30, 33 AD. For us that would be a Monday, but Jewish days are sundown to sundown, so it still fell on a Sunday.

Then on April 3, 33 AD, Jesus was crucified. I have seen more evidence for this date than any other, because it fits all these criteria:

1.) Preparation day falls on the 14th of Nisan.

2.) Day before Sabbath.

3.) Falls during Pilate's reign (26-36 AD).

4.) Falls on the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad (July 32 to June 33 AD).

5.) Blood red moon (Acts 2:20) occurred precisely at 3:00 PM on April 3, 33 AD... you can confirm this with Starry Night, which I recommend you do).

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/day/day.htm

http://www.gotpetsonline.com/greatest-time-prophecy-in-the-bible.shtml

The dates fit exactly, and so does Gabriel's statement, "AFTER 69 weeks". I think Douggg's point still stands: the Bible is using clear dates. It isn't misleading. Yes, it says "after", but it uses the number 69 and not 69.5.

Remember that Daniel's prophecy specifically says that Messiah would show up after "7 weeks" and "62 weeks". That means Messiah would show up in exactly 69 weeks. Jesus SPECIFICALLY told His disciples TWICE that his "hour had not yet come", but on Palm Sunday 33 AD, His hour finally came and He entered Jerusalem as the Anointed One. He said if the people kept silent "even the rocks would cry out".

Here is a further confirmation: Jesus was literally anointed a week before his death. This is when Jesus was in Bethany before Passover. Daniel's prophecy specifically refers to the "Anointed One". And "anointing" literally means to anoint the head. This did not happen to Jesus until the week before His death, when Mary (not Jesus' mother Mary) literally anointed His head with pure nard.

Douggg is asking a legitimate question, which is, who first, outside of the Bible, suggested that Daniel 9:27 applies to Christ? I understand that some interpret the Bible that way, but that wasn't the question. He's just wondering was it an early Church theory, Iraneus, Eusebius, Origen, who? Or was the early Church silent on the issue?

Here is what I wrote in another thread:

1.) Chronology. The events of 9:27 take place after the "Anointed One" was cut off and after the "people of the prince to come" destroy the city and the sanctuary.

2.) Substance. The "he" of 9:27 comes to power through abominations, or causes an abomination. Like it or not, the "he" of 9:27 is connected with abominations.

3.) The covenant. Jesus confirmed an eternal covenant while the "he" of 9:27 only confirmed a covenant for 7 years. There is no connection between Jesus' covenant and a 7 year period anywhere in the Bible.

4.) The context. A thorough study of the text would indicate that 9:27 is the same event as Daniel 11:31, Daniel 12:11, Mark 13:14, Matthew 24:15, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

5.) The Anointed One's being "cut off", if understood plainly from the text, occurs after 69 weeks of years. Not 69.5 weeks of years. So the Messiah was cut off 483 years after "the decree", not 486.5 years after "the decree".

And I will add a few more points:

6.) All the Bible translators I've seen interpret the text as the "he" of 9:27 being different than the "he" of v. 25 and v. 26

7.) The "he" of v. 27 is foreshadowed in v. 26 ("the people of the prince who is to come")

8.) The "Anointed One" is specifically called "Anointed One", and not "he", in v. 25 and v. 26, so we should expect the same in v. 27 if that verse was referring to Messiah

I'm going to add another point to these eight:

Consider the grammatical usage in Daniel 9. I'm no expert in Hebrew, but in English, pronouns are often used after a specific person or group has already been identified. "The prince who is to come", which cannot refer to Christ, separates v. 27 from the previous mentions of the "Anointed One". If v. 27 referred to the "Anointed One" it would have been necessary to restate that. Yet Gabriel uses the pronoun "he". This would mean that the pronoun would most likely refer to the prince of v. 26. In fact, because the original book of Daniel did not have chapter and verse markers, you might even say that the modern markers are misleading.

Perhaps this would be the proper way to divide this passage into verses:

v. 25: 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,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.

v. 26: The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong. I wish some others of you could do the same. We are all trying to read God's Word as best we can, but the above quote is how I see it.

God bless.

[mark s]

fwiw . . . following is K&D's comment on this verse:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan 9:26 -
After the threescore and two weeks, i.e., in the seventieth שׁבוּע, shall the Messiah be cut off. - From the אחרי (after) it does not with certainty follow that the “cutting off” of the Maschiach falls wholly in the beginning of the seventieth week, but only that the “cutting off” shall constitute the first great event of this week, and that those things which are mentioned in the remaining part of the verse shall then follow. The complete designation of the time of the “cutting off” can only be found from the whole contents of Dan_9:26, Dan_9:27. נכרת, from כּרּת, to hew down, to fell, to cut to pieces, signifies to be rooted up, destroyed, annihilated, and denotes generally a violent kind of death, though not always, but only the uprooting from among the living, or from the congregation, and is therefore the usual expression for the destruction of the ungodly - e.g., Psa_37:9; Pro_2:22 - without particularly designating the manner in which this is done. From יכּרת it cannot thus be strictly proved that this part of the verse announces the putting to death of an anointed one, or of the Messiah. Of the word Maschiach three possible interpretations have been given: 1. That the Maschiach Nagid of Dan_9:25, the Maschiach of Dan_9:26, and the Nagid of Dan_9:26, are three different persons; 2. that all the three expressions denote one and the same person; and 3. that the Maschiach Nagid of Dan_9:25 and the Maschiach of Dan_9:26 are the same person, and that the Nagid of Dan_9:26 is another and a different person. The first of these has been maintained by J. D. Michaelis, Jahn. Ebrard understands by all the three expressions the Messiah, and supposes that he is styled fully Maschiach Nagid in Dan_9:25 in order that His calling and His dignity (משׁיח), as well as His power and strength (נגיד), might be designated; in Dan_9:26, משׁיח, the anointed, where mention is made of His sufferings and His rejection; in Dan_9:26, נגיד, the prince, where reference is made to the judgment which He sends (by the Romans on apostate Jerusalem). But this view is refuted by the circumstance that הבּא (that is to come) follows נגיד, whereby the prince is represented as first coming, as well as by the circumstance that הבּא נגיד, who destroys the city and the sanctuary, whose end shall be with a flood, consequently cannot be the Messiah, but is the enemy of the people and kingdom of God, who shall arise (Dan_7:24-25) in the last time. But if in Dan_9:26 the Nagid is different from the Maschiach, then both also appear to be different from the Maschiach Nagid of Dan_9:25. The circumstance that in Dan_9:26 משׁיח has neither the article nor the addition נגיד following it, appears to be in favour of this opinion. The absence of the one as well as the other denotes that משׁיח, after that which is said of Him, in consideration of the connection of the words, needs no more special description. If we observe that the destruction of the city and the sanctuary is so connected with the Maschiach that we must consider this as the immediate or first consequence of the cutting off of the Maschiach, and that the destruction shall be brought about by a Nagid, then by Maschiach we can understand neither a secular prince or king nor simply a high priest, but only an anointed one who stands in such a relation to the city and sanctuary, that with his being “cut off” the city and the sanctuary lose not only their protection and their protector, but the sanctuary also loses, at the same time, its character as the sanctuary, which the Maschiach had given to it. This is suitable to no Jewish high priest, but only to the Messias whom Jehovah anointed to be a Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek, and placed as Lord over Zion, His holy hill. We agree therefore with Hävernick, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, and Kliefoth, who regard the Maschiach of this verse as identical with the Maschiach Nagid of Dan_9:25, as Christ, who in the fullest sense of the word is the Anointed; and we hope to establish this view more fully in the following exposition of the historical reference of this word of the angel.
But by this explanation of the משׁיח we are not authorized to regard the word יכּרת as necessarily pointing to the death of the Messias, the crucifixion of Christ, since יכּרת, as above shown, does not necessarily denote a violent death. The right interpretation of this word depends on the explanation of the words לו ואין which follow - words which are very differently interpreted by critics. The supposition is grammatically inadmissible that לו אין = איננּוּ (Michaelis, Hitzig), although the lxx in the Codex Chisianus have translated them by καὶ οὐκ ἔσται; and in general all those interpretations which identify אין with לא, as e.g., et non sibi, and not for himself (Vitringa, Rosenmüller, Hävernick, and others). For אין is never interchanged with לא, but is so distinguished from it that לא, non, is negation purely, while אין, “it is not,” denies the existence of the thing; cf. Hengstenberg's Christol. iii. p. 81f., where all the passages which Gesenius refers to as exemplifying this exchange are examined and rightly explained, proving that אין is never used in the sense of לא. Still less is לו to be taken in the sense of לו (<) אשׁר, “there shall not then be one who (belongs) to him;” for although the pronomen relat. may be wanting in short sentences, yet that can be only in such as contain a subject to which it can refer. But in the אין no subject is contained, but only the non-existence is declared; it cannot be said: no one is, or nothing is. In all passages where it is thus rightly translated a participle follows, in which the personal or actual subject is contained, of which the non-existence is predicated. לו (<) אין without anything following is elliptical, and the subject which is not, which will not be, is to be learned from the context or from the matter itself. The missing subject here cannot be משׁיח, because לו points back to משׁיח; nor can it be עם, people (Vulg., Grotius), or a descendant (Wieseler), or a follower (Auberlen), because all these words are destitute of any support from the context, and are brought forward arbitrarily. Since that which “is not to Him” is not named, we must thus read the expression in its undefined universality: it is not to Him, viz., that which He must have, to be the Maschiach. We are not by this to think merely of dominion, people, sanctuary, but generally of the place which He as Maschiach has had, or should have, among His people and in the sanctuary, but, by His being “cut off,” is lost. This interpretation is of great importance in guiding to a correct rendering of יכּרת; for it shows that יכּרת does not denote the putting to death, or cutting off of existence, but only the annihilation of His place as Maschiach among His people and in His kingdom. For if after His “cutting off” He has not what He should have, it is clear that annihilation does not apply to Him personally, but only that He has lost His place and function as the Maschiach.
(Note: Kranichfeld quite appropriately compares the strong expression יכּרת with “the equally strong יבלּא (shall wear out) in Dan_7:25, spoken of that which shall befall the saints on the part of the enemy of God in the last great war. As by this latter expression destruction in the sense of complete annihilation cannot be meant, since the saints personally exist after the catastrophe (cf. Dan_9:27, Dan_9:22, Dan_9:18), so also by this expression here (יכּרת) we are not to understand annihilation.”)
In consequence of the cutting off of the משׁיח destruction falls upon the city and the sanctuary. This proceeds from the people of the prince who comes. ישׁחית, to destroy, to ruin, is used, it is true, of the desolating of countries, but predicated of a city and sanctuary it means to overthrow; cf. e.g., Gen_19:13., where it is used of the destruction of Sodom; and even in the case of countries the השׁחית consists in the destruction of men and cattle; cf. Jer_36:29.
The meaning of הבּא נגיד עם depends chiefly on the interpretation of the הבּא. This we cannot, with Ebrard, refer to עם. Naturally it is connected with נגיד, not only according to the order of the words, but in reality, since in the following verse (Dan_9:27) the people are no longer spoken of, but only the actions and proceedings of the prince are described. הבּא does not mean qui succedit (Roesch, Maurer), but is frequently used by Daniel of a hostile coming; cf. Dan_1:1; Dan_11:10,Dan_11:13, Dan_11:15. But in this sense הבּא appears to be superfluous, since it is self-evident that the prince, if he will destroy Jerusalem, must come or draw near. One also must not say that הבּא designates the prince as one who was to come (ἐρχόμενος), since from the expression “coming days,” as meaning “future days,” it does not follow that a “coming prince” is a “future prince.” The הבּא with the article: “he who comes, or will come,” denotes much rather the נגיד (which is without the article) as such an one whose coming is known, of whom Daniel has heard that he will come to destroy the people of God. But in the earlier revelations Daniel heard of two princes who shall bring destruction on his people: in Dan_7:8, Dan_7:24., of Antichrist; and in Dan_8:9., 23ff., of Antiochus. To one of these the הבּא points. Which of the two is meant must be gathered from the connection, and this excludes the reference to Antiochus, and necessitates our thinking of the Antichrist.
In the following clause: “and his end with the flood,” the suffix refers simply to the hostile Nagid, whose end is here emphatically placed over against his coming (Kran., Hofm., Kliefoth). Preconceived views as to the historical interpretation of the prophecy lie at the foundation of all other references. The Messianic interpreters, who find in the words a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and thus understand by the Nagid Titus, cannot apply the suffix to Nagid. M. Geier, Hävernick, and others, therefore, refer it (the suffix) to the city and the sanctuary; but that is grammatically inadmissible, since העיר (the city) is gen faem. Aub. and others refer it, therefore, merely to the sanctuary; but the separation of the city from the sanctuary is quite arbitrary. Vitringa, C. B. Michaelis, Hgstb., interpret the suffix as neuter, and refer it to ישׁחית (shall destroy), or, more correctly, to the idea of destroying comprehended in it, for they understand שׁטף of a warlike overflowing flood: “and the end of it shall be (or: it shall end) in the flood.” On the other hand, v. Lengerke and Kliefoth have rightly objected to this view. “This reference of the suffix,” they say, “is inadmissibly harsh; the author must have written erroneously, since he suggested the reference of the suffix to עם or to נגיד. One cannot think of what is meant by the end of the destruction, since the destruction itself is the end; a flood may, it is true, be an emblem of a warlike invasion of a country, but it never signifies the warlike march, the expedition.” There thus remains nothing else than to apply the suffix to the Nagid, the prince. קץ can accordingly only denote the destruction of the prince. Hitzig's interpretation, that קצּו is the result of his coming, refutes itself.
In בּשׁטף the article is to be observed, by which alone such interpretations as “in an overflowing” (Ros., Roed., and others), ”vi quadam ineluctabili oppressus” (Steudel, Maurer), “like an overflowing,” and the like, are proved to be verbally inadmissible. The article shows that a definite and well-known overflowing is meant. שׁטף, “overflowing,” may be the emblem of an army spreading itself over the land, as in Dan_11:10,Dan_11:22, Dan_11:26; Isa_8:8, or the emblem of a judgment desolating or destroying a city, country, or people; cf. Psa_32:6; Nah_1:8; Pro_27:4; Psa_90:5. The first of these interpretations would give this meaning: The prince shall find his end in his warlike expedition; and the article in בּשׁטף would refer back to הבּא. This interpretation is indeed quite possible, but not very probable, because שׁטף would then be the overflowing which was caused by the hostile prince or his coming, and the thought would be this, that he should perish in it. But this agrees neither with the following clause, that war should be to the end, nor with Dan_7:21, Dan_7:26, according to which the enemy of God holds the superiority till he is destroyed by the judgment of God. Accordingly, we agree with Wieseler, Hofmann, Kranichfeld, and Kliefoth in adopting the other interpretation of שׁטף, flood, as the figure of the desolating judgment of God, and explain the article as an allusion to the flood which overwhelmed Pharaoh and his host. Besides, the whole passage is, with Maurer and Klief., to be regarded as a relative clause, and to be connected with הבּא: the people of a prince who shall come and find his destruction in the flood.
This verse (Dan_9:26) contains a third statement, which adds a new element to the preceding. Rosenmüller, Ewald, Hofm., and others connect these into one passage, thus: and to the end of the war a decree of desolations continues. But although קץ, grammatically considered, is the stat. constr., and might be connected with מלחמה (war), yet this is opposed by the circumstance, that in the preceding sentence no mention is expressly made of war; and that if the war which consisted in the destruction of the city should be meant, then מלחמה ought to have the article. From these reasons we agree with the majority of interpreters in regarding מלחמה as the predicate of the passage: “and to the end is war;” but we cannot refer קץ, with Wieseler, to the end of the prince, or, with Häv. and Aub., to the end of the city, because קץ has neither a suffix nor an article. According to the just remark of Hitzig, קץ without any limitation is the end generally, the end of the period in progress, the seventy שׁבעים, and corresponds to סופא עד in Dan_7:26, to the end of all things, Dan_12:13 (Klief.). To the end war shall be = war shall continue during the whole of the last שׁבוּע.
The remaining words, שׁממות נחרצת, form an apposition to מלחמה, notwithstanding the objection by Kliefoth, that since desolations are a consequence of the war, the words cannot be regarded as in apposition. For we do not understand why in abbreviated statements the effect cannot be placed in the form of an apposition to the cause. The objection also overlooks the word נחרצת. If desolations are the effect of the war, yet not the decree of the desolations, which can go before the war or can be formed during the war. שׁממות denotes desolation not in an active, but in a passive sense: laid waste, desolated. נחרצת, that which is determined, the irrevocably decreed; therefore used of divine decrees, and that of decrees with reference to the infliction of punishment; cf. Dan_9:27; Dan_11:36; Isa_10:23; Isa_28:22. Ewald is quite in error when he says that it means “the decision regarding the fearful deeds, the divine decision as it embodies itself in the judgments (Dan_7:11.) on the world on account of such fearful actions and desolations,” because שׁממות has not the active meaning. Auberlen weakens its force when he renders it “decreed desolations.” “That which is decreed of desolations” is also not a fixed, limited, measured degree of desolations (Hofm., Klief.); for in the word there does not lie so much the idea of limitation to a definite degree, as much rather the idea of the absolute decision, as the connection with כלה in Dan_9:27, as well as in the two passages from Isaiah above referred to, shows. The thought is therefore this: “Till the end war will be, for desolations are irrevocably determined by God.” Since שׁממות has nothing qualifying it, we may not limit the “decree of desolations” to the laying waste of the city and the sanctuary, but under it there are to be included the desolations which the fall of the prince who destroys the city and the sanctuary shall bring along with it.

[Douggg]

Not that I hold to that position, but ... Daniel doesn't say "at the end of the 69th week," he says "AFTER 69 weeks."

After means after, which "could" be at the very end of the 69th week, first day of the 70th week. But, it cannot mean any time within the 60 weeks. After means after. After monday comes tuesday. If I say I will be there after monday, I won't be arriving on monday. It might be 00:01 Tuesday morning. But, it cannot be any part of Monday.

Hi Jeff, Daniel doesn't say "after 69 weeks" if you really want to get technical. It says "after threescore and two weeks", which is 62 weeks. It is implied to be after 69 weeks because in the previous verse are 7 weeks. Nonetheless, I don't have any disagreement with your point.

Doug L.

[Douggg]

The crucial difference is how you look at the "coming" of the Messiah. I mean, do you think His "coming" was at the "triumphal entry"? Or was it when Jesus said He fulfilled the Messianic coming proclamation in Isaiah?

Personally, I'd rely on the words of Jesus any day. He declared He had come as the Messiah, anyone care to tell Him He didn't? It seems even those in the Synagogue were able to figure it out. Is it a coincidence that about half way through a "seven" after this He was cut off? Not likely.

So too answer the OP, I think OM got it right. For quite a while early on people simply viewed it as though the prophecy was centered upon Jesus.

Hi Yogi, well if going by Jesus's words in Luke 19 Jesus entered Jerusalem hailed as king. In 19:41, he wept over the city.
In Luke 19:19:44 .....because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. What I have always heard is that Jesus was referring to Daniel 9 and his arrival as the messiah, that the Jews should have known.

Doug L.

[Douggg]

Hi Douggg,

Please don't say the bible, if you hold to that position.

Why is it so hard to believe that some people actually derive their understanding of the bible, from reading what the bible, itself, ACTUALLY SAYS, instead of relying on someone else to TELL THEM WHAT THE BIBLE SUPPOSEDLY SAYS?

In other words, what's wrong with reading the bible for yourself, rather than reading someone else's interpretation of the bible, instead?

I was not intending to offend anyone. A response that they get their view from the bible doesn't help me in tracking down when/who made the theory popular.

Doug L.

[Douggg]

Douggg-

I don't rightly know the answer to your question, but I point you in the direction of Keil and Delitzsch who wrote in the 1800s. If you could get your hands on their commentary on Daniel, that would be a good start. They wrote from a PreMillennial perspective in the day when A-Millennialism and Post-Millennialism were the norm. Most likely they will interact with positions that were prevalent around that time.

I will say that from what I gather, it was not uncommon in those days to view the one who confirms the covenant in Daniel 9:27 as Christ. Historicism was the mainline Protestant view a couple hundred years ago.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

Hi Orange and Mark, K and D seem to be more than what I wanted to wade through. I am suspecting along denomination lines.

Doug L.

[watching]

Hi Douggg,

I just want to say that, I know you are pre-trib, and I just wanted to let you know, that as far as pre-trib goes, this does not affect my belief, or maybe I should say, my hope for a pre-trib rapture.

Remember the 3 1/2 weeks remaining are for Daniel's people and Daniel's holy city; that does not necessarily mean that there will only be 3 1/2 years involving the church. But then again, I don't know if there will, or not.

Here's how I look at; Israel already had their 3 1/2 years with the bridegroom.

The following verse indicates, to me, that when Jesus came the first time, He came as the bridegroom for Israel, because He called himself a bridegroom.

Matthew 9:15
Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.

And the fact that Jesus came only for the house of Israel, at least initially, is evidenced by the following verse:

correction: (I had accidentally typed in the same verse twice in my initial post)

Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

So, if it's true that according to Jewish tradition, the bridegroom has to spend 7 days, translated to 7 years, with the bride, then Jesus would have already spent 3 1/2 years, as the bridegroom, with Israel, until He was cut off.

Furthermore, I do not know of any time that Jesus has spent as the bridegroom with the church. But then again, it may just be that the church will be grafted in with Israel, as the bride. I do not know for sure.

Nevertheless, there are some indications that I have seen from scripture, that would seem to indicate, at least, to me, that there might actually be two weddings, or perhaps a two-fold wedding, or something of that nature. I tried to start a thread about that subject some time ago, but it didn't go very far. Nevertheless, that is something I have been wanting to explore.

In any case, my point is that, my understanding of Daniel 9:27 does not affect my understanding, or maybe I should say my hope for a pre-trib rapture.

Just thought I would let you know that.

[watching]

Hi amessenger4god,

Sunset before Sunday would be Saturday, not Monday.

edit: Btw, the decree that does fit, is the decree made by Artaxerxes in his 7th year, which is recorded in the book of Ezra, chapter 7.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra%207-8:36&version=KJV

[amessenger4god]

Understood, but March 30th, 33 AD, was a Monday (in our calendar reckoning).

The Gospel of John gives us the precise timing of the Triumphal Entry in relation to Jesus' death. John says that Jesus was in Bethany 6 days before His death (John 12:1). In Bethany, Jesus literally became the "Anointed One" when Mary anointed Him.

"Palm Sunday" occurred exactly one day later (John 12:12). So Jesus came in, riding on a donkey, exactly 5 days before His death.

Jesus was killed on the 14th of Nisan, Preparation Day, at exactly 3:00 PM.

Day 1 - Sundown Sunday to sundown Monday... Triumphal Entry

Day 2 - Sundown Monday to sundown Tuesday

Day 3 - Sundown Tuesday to sundown Wednesday

Day 4 - Sundown Wednesday to sundown Thursday

Day 5 - Sundown Thursday to sundown Friday... Jesus killed at 3:00 PM


And again, going back to Daniel's prophecy: EXACTLY 173,880 days (483 360-day years) transpire between March 5th 444 BC and March 30th 33 AD. The timing is impeccable. Not a day is missing or added. Perfect timing. Exactly 69 weeks to the arrival of the "Anointed One".

For those just reading this thread, please read over my last post... it has a lot more details.

Of course another possibility, is that we are both right. This website favors these dates, but also figures Jesus' ministry to be 3.5 years long:

http://www.gotquestions.org/length-Jesus-ministry.html

[Yogi]

The crucial difference is how you look at the "coming" of the Messiah. I mean, do you think His "coming" was at the "triumphal entry"? Or was it when Jesus said He fulfilled the Messianic coming proclamation in Isaiah?

Personally, I'd rely on the words of Jesus any day. He declared He had come as the Messiah, anyone care to tell Him He didn't? It seems even those in the Synagogue were able to figure it out. Is it a coincidence that about half way through a "seven" after this He was cut off? Not likely.

So too answer the OP, I think OM got it right. For quite a while early on people simply viewed it as though the prophecy was centered upon Jesus.

Hi Yogi, well if going by Jesus's words in Luke 19 Jesus entered Jerusalem hailed as king. In 19:41, he wept over the city.
In Luke 19:19:44 .....because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. What I have always heard is that Jesus was referring to Daniel 9 and his arrival as the messiah, that the Jews should have known.

Doug L.

Hi Dougg,

Yeah I've seen this as the usual argument. So how to decide? Is the "visitation" the same as the "coming" of the messiah? Nah, look for context in what John the Baptist says: Matt. 11:3- And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?

Even though he is also talking about Jesus versus another, you can see that the question of the Messiah having come is front and center. He came, just not in the way people expected. That is still the case when you juxtaposed the two verses.

Please take a look at the USES of "visitation" in scripture. ( I hope you do this) When Jesus used this phrase, it was a very important day indeed. But not His "coming". He had already humbly done so. Visitation carries with it something other than the way you are using it. It has to do with judgement, punishment, inspection, etc, Kind of like an audit.

What you are talking about is different from the way "coming" is used. Consider Jesus' exchange with His brothers in John 7, He plainly tells those listening, "Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come:.. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come."

What time was Jesus talking about? (its time to see it differently) Mal. 3:1- Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

How interesting, a most important DAY indeed. Jesus was on the verge of fulfilling this prophecy. And what do you know, another gap between this and the next verse. Coincidence? Not likely.

[The Orange Mailman]

Thanks Mark. And just so everyone is aware, I was stating that a good majority believed that the one who confirmed the covenant was Christ, but that is not what I believe. It seems clear to me that the one in Daniel 9:27 who confirms the covenant is a future antichrist. Although this is the question and answer forum, not the debate forum.

I will also add that I believe the decree of Cyrus to be the Biblically correct one. Cyrus was pre-ordained by the LORD in Isaiah 44-45 to issue that decree. It is also confirmed by the chronicler in Ezra to be the impetus which brought the Jews back to rebuild the city and the temple. Cyrus gave the sacred vessels to Sheshbazzar (I believe this is a title for Zerubbabel). When the legality was questioned in the book of Ezra, the decree of Cyrus is the one that was pointed to and upheld authority over any other law that might prevent the rebuilding of the city or temple.

The problem is that secular history is reckoned inaccurately. The Jewish history was forsaken in favor of the records by the Persian kings which inflated the number of years that each king reigned in order to make it look like the Persian Empire was more influential that it really was. So historians are trying to make the 70 weeks of years fit in vain to a system that is flawed in its reckoning. More information can be read at this link here.

http://www.biblefragrances.com/studies/CooperCh13.html

Also, a question, is it true that the Hebrew word translated “after” can also be translated “on the hinder part of”? If this is the case, couldn’t the wording in Hebrew mean that the death of the Messiah comes on the hinder part of the 62 weeks? Any Hebrew scholars on the board?

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

P.S. For Yogi, Jesus did not present Himself as the glorious king, only as Isaiah’s suffering servant. Take a look at Matthew 12:15-21 and John 6:15. But the only relevant event in Messiah’s life in Daniel 9 is His death. So that is the only time marker that we have.

[watching]

Hi amessenger4god,

Aside from whether what you have presented is correct, or not, how would someone living during Daniel's day, or someone living during the time of Christ, be able to calculate that?

For that matter, how would anyone be able to calculate that even today?

edit: Do you have some type of converter that will calculate 173,880 days from one date to another, at your disposal?

Because I sure don't.

I do, however, know how to add 483 years to 457 b.c.

[jgilberAZ]

I will also add that I believe the decree of Cyrus to be the Biblically correct one. Cyrus was pre-ordained by the LORD in Isaiah 44-45 to issue that decree. It is also confirmed by the chronicler in Ezra to be the impetus which brought the Jews back to rebuild the city and the temple. Cyrus gave the sacred vessels to Sheshbazzar (I believe this is a title for Zerubbabel). When the legality was questioned in the book of Ezra, the decree of Cyrus is the one that was pointed to and upheld authority over any other law that might prevent the rebuilding of the city or temple.

The problem is that secular history is reckoned inaccurately. The Jewish history was forsaken in favor of the records by the Persian kings which inflated the number of years that each king reigned in order to make it look like the Persian Empire was more influential that it really was. So historians are trying to make the 70 weeks of years fit in vain to a system that is flawed in its reckoning. More information can be read at this link here.

http://www.biblefragrances.com/studies/CooperCh13.html

Cooper goes over this quite extensively, and presents a compelling case, in his book God's Elect and the Great Tribulation.

- Jeff

[watching]

If you will notice in Isaiah 44:28, Cyrus is given credit for not only building the temple, BUT FOR BUILDING THE CITY OF JERUSALEM, even though the decree made by Cyrus in Ezra 1 speaks only of the temple and does not say anything about the rebuilding the city.

See Cyrus decree here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra%201&version=KJV

Isaiah 44:28
That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Then, if you will notice Isaiah 1:26, it says that Jerusalem would be called THE CITY OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, THE FAITHFUL CITY, when the judges and counselors have been restored as at the beginning.

Isaiah 1:26
And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city.

Furthermore, if you will notice in Ezra 6, which is where the decree of Darius is recorded, you will see that Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, are ALL THREE given credit for the rebuilding of the temple/city, which would seem to indicate that the decree of Cyrus is only complete when ALL THREE DECREES are combined together as one unit.

See Darius decree here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra%206&version=KJV

Also, if you will notice in Ezra 7, which is where the decree of Artaxerxes is recorded, which is the third of the three decrees made by Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, you will notice that it is with this decree that the counselors and judges are restored.

25And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not.

See the entire decree by Artaxerxes here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra+7&version=KJV

And remember, according to Isaiah 1:26, the city of Jerusalem would be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city, only when the judges and counselors would be restored as at the beginning.

Here is that verse again:

Isaiah 1:26
And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city.

Besides, all of this, THESE ARE THE ONLY THREE DECREES recorded in the bible, concerning the rebuilding of the temple/Jerusalem.

Nehemiah 2 DOES NOT RECORD A DECREE, it only records a CONVERSATION made between Nehemiah and Artaxerxes, whereby Artaxerxes agrees to send letters, so that Nehemiah can rebuild the city.

See conversation between Nehemiah and Artaxerxes here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%202&version=KJV

Now, getting back to how all of this ties in to Daniel 9:24-27..................

The Ezra decree was dated 457 b.c.

457 b.c. plus 483 years brings you to 27 a.d., which is the ONLY VIABLE DATE out of the three decrees.

[Yogi]

Thanks OM, those verses pretty much confirm what I believe.

As to the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy (the covenant) by a future anti-Christ, I don't think so. Jesus quoted the "covenant with many" statement just before He was crucified.

[amessenger4god]

Hi amessenger4god,

Aside from whether what you have presented is correct, or not, how would someone living during Daniel's day, or someone living during the time of Christ, be able to calculate that?

Well... it is a prophecy. Gabriel gave the Word of God to Daniel. As for calculating the actual number of days, someone could count the number of days between Artaxerxes' decree and Jesus' Triumphal Entry and divide by 360.

For that matter, how would anyone be able to calculate that even today?

It is fairly straightforward: first you need to determine the date of the decree. We could argue endlessly whether it was Cyrus or Artaxerxes, but it would be unfair to say it could not be Artaxerxes. Clearly it could have been. Please take note that Daniel's prophecy does not mention a decree to rebuild the Temple, but only a decree to "restore and rebuild Jerusalem". If it was Artaxerxes we know the date: March 5, 444 BC. It was the 20th year of his reign.

Then we need to make a choice: does Daniel's prophecy refer to solar years or 360-day years? Well we don't know for sure. It could be either. Let's assume 360-day years, since it is a prophecy.

First we need to determine how many solar years transpire between 444 BC and our supposed date of 33 AD since that is how we reckon time on our calendar. It is 476 years, not 477 (from 1 BC to 1 AD is only 1 year, not two). Then you multiply 476 by the number of days in a solar year (there are around 365.24 days in a year). The result is 173,855 days, which is exactly 25 days short of exactly 483 360-day years. Since Jesus was likely crucified on Nisan 14, 33 AD, and the Gospel of John tells us that His Triumphal Entry was exactly 5 days beforehand, we can figure that He rode in on a donkey on March 30, 33 AD. This is exactly 25 days after March 5.

173,855 days + 25 days is exactly 173,880 days. This is exactly 483 360-day years.

edit: Do you have some type of converter that will calculate 173,880 days from one date to another, at your disposal?

I just use a regular calculator. If you know how many days are in a solar year it is a simple calculation (multiply/divide).

I do, however, know how to add 483 years to 457 b.c.

But Jesus' ministry did not begin in 27 AD. His ministry had to occur in 29 AD, or after, because it began during or after the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius (Luke 3:1).

Additionally, consider that not only are there 483 360-day years between 444 BC and 33 AD, but there were exactly 173,880 days between the two, as well. Perfect precision.

69 weeks of years: 69 x 7 x 360 = 173,880.

It's actually astonishing when you think about it.

If you will notice in Isaiah 44:28, Cyrus is given credit for not only building the temple, BUT FOR BUILDING THE CITY OF JERUSALEM, even though the decree made by Cyrus in Ezra 1 speaks only of the temple and does not say anything about the rebuilding the city.

Yeah, that's true (I never noticed that verse before). But remember that it was Artaxerxes' decree that caused Nehemiah to immediately return to Jerusalem and restore and rebuild the city (interestingly, the book of Nehemiah is what we just studied in Church today... lol). We have two valid decrees and we have to pick one. Reckoning from Artaxerxes' decree yields precisely 173,880 days to Jesus' Triumphal Entry when He was first, publicly considered Messiah, the Anointed One. Literally one day before, He was anointed by Mary.

[redeemed1953]

Well, I don't know where it originated, but it makes sense in that there is NO 7 year tribulation mentioned in the scripture...just 3.5 years called the Time of Jacob's trouble.

Since EVERYTHING in the scripture before Jesus points to Him and everything during the Gospels is about Him and everything else declares Him, I don't see why it is so hard to believe that HE fulfilled 3.5 years of the 70th week of Daniel and there is only 3.5 years left.

Just my .02 worth

[watching]

Hi amessenger4god,

This is not something you can calculate with a calculator. You would need to know exactly how many days were in each year going back 483 years, meaning you would have to factor in every leap year for the previous 483 years, not to mention the fact that you would have to account for every calendar change that may have occurred during those 483 years.

So, basically you would have to have some kind of program, such as the following program, which someone had linked when I was having this discussion on another thread some time ago.

Here is the link: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

In any case, this is far too complicated for me, but you are more than welcome to try and make all the calendar adjustments using this converter and see what you come up with.

Here is what the poster who provided this link came up with:

Rizen wrote:

According to Hadley (via Anderson), Artaxerxes decree in Nehemiah 2 went forth on March 14, 445 B.C. The assumption is that this Julian date fell on the first day of Nisan. However, this March 14, 445 B.C. actually fell on Nisan 2. Therefore, the decree from Artaxerxes really went forth on the Julian date March 13, 445 B.C. (Nisan 1).

According to Hadley (via Anderson), if you count forward 173,880 days from March 14, 445 B.C., you will arrive at Sunday April 6, 32 A.D. If you do the math yourself, however, you will discover that 173,880 days from March 14, 445 B.C. terminates on Friday April 4, 32 A.D. (not Sunday April 6). Sunday April 6, 32 A.D. would be 173,882 days from March 14, 445 B.C.

You can do the math yourself here: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

Julian date March 14, 445 B.C. (-445) = Modified Julian date = -841041

Julian date April 6, 32 A.D. = MJD -667159

841041 - 667159 = 173882 days

The other glaring problem is that Sunday April 6, 32 A.D. falls on the Hebrew date Nisan 6. This would place the Sunday Triumphal Entry of Jesus two Sundays before the 14 Nisan Passover. We know from John 12:12 that the Triumphal Entry of Jesus fell on the day after the Saturday Shabbat that preceded the 14 Nisan Passover. In other words, the Triumphal Entry of Jesus had to fall on the Sunday preceding the 14 Nisan Passover, not two Sundays before it.

The solution is rather simple. The book of Daniel states that there shall be 7 and 62 weeks to Messiah, not 9 and 60 weeks. If you include a 360 day 50th year Jubilee year that divides the 7 and 62 weeks ("Seven Weeks [17,640 days] And [360 day Jubilee] Threescore and Two Weeks [156,240 days]"), you will arrive at 174,240 days. If you count forward 174,240 days from the Julian date March 13, 445 B.C. (1 Nisan), you will arrive at Sunday March 29, 33 A.D. This Sunday fell on the Hebrew date 9 Nisan, and is also the Sunday that immediately precedes the Friday 14 Nisan Passover. In my opinion, this was the date of Jesus' Triumphal Entry.

March 13, 445 B.C. = Modified Julian date -841042

March 29, 33 A.D. = MJD -666802

841042 - 666802 = 174240 days

Now let me ask you this, how would someone living during the time of Daniel, or during the time of Christ, be able to calculate the date of the Lord's coming to the exact date, without so much as a calculator, and much less a computer program that would make all the calendar conversions for him/her?

[watching]

Thank you Redeemed1953!

[amessenger4god]

Now let me ask you this, how would someone living during the time of Daniel, or during the time of Christ, be able to calculate the date of the Lord's coming to the exact date, without so much as a calculator, and much less a computer program that would make all the calendar conversions for him/her?

I'm not understanding the point of this question...? No one during the time of Daniel or Christ had to calculate anything. Prophecy comes from God. I'm sure God knew the exact date and He doesn't need a calculator.

Nevertheless, there is no computer program necessary. Like I said, I just used a calculator. It is a simple calculation:
figure out the number of days between March 5th, 444 BC and March 30th, 33 AD. Then divide by 360. The result is exactly 483 360-day years.

It is not just in modern times that people deal with big numbers. The people of Daniel and Christ's day were well aware that the solar cycle was longer than 360 days. They dealt with the problem in different ways.

I'm aware of Anderson's calculation. He made several mistakes:

His first mistake was in the date he chose for Jesus' death. Jesus died (more than likely) on April 3, 33 AD, not in 32 BC.

His second mistake was in the year he chose for Artaxerxes' decree. The decree was issued in his 20th year, which would have fallen in 444 BC, not in 445 BC.

When you choose the right dates it fits perfectly.

Well, I don't know where it originated, but it makes sense in that there is NO 7 year tribulation mentioned in the scripture...just 3.5 years called the Time of Jacob's trouble.

The argument is not necessarily that there will be a 7 year tribulation, but that there will be a "70th week". This is a direct interpretation of Daniel chapter 9. It could be wrong, but it makes sense in the context and chronology of the passage, in addition to parallels elsewhere in Daniel regarding the AOD, and the time-frames given in Revelation.


Watching,

There is also another possibility we have not considered:

We could both be right. That is, I might be correct in my reckoning of time, but perhaps v. 27 is a dual-fulfillment, in which both of our scenarios are correct. It would explain my dates, but also explain why Jesus may have had a 3.5 year ministry.

God bless.

[watching]

Hi amessenger4god,

I'm not understanding the point of this question...? No one during the time of Daniel or Christ had to calculate anything. Prophecy comes from God. I'm sure God knew the exact date and He doesn't need a calculator.

So, you're saying that God, through His Word, gave a prophecy to the Jewish people telling them when they could expect their Messiah, that only He could understand or calculate?

Nevertheless, there is no computer program necessary. Like I said, I just used a calculator. It is a simple calculation:
figure out the number of days between March 5th, 444 BC and March 30th, 33 AD. Then divide by 360. The result is exactly 483 360-day years.

It's not as simple as that. First of all, those dates that you are giving, are dates that have been determined by using the Julian calendar and/or whatever calendar was before that, and/or any other calendars that may have been used during that 483 years.

You cannot simply go back 173,880 days, because those calendars were NOT BASED ON A 360 DAY YEAR, WITH NO LEAP YEARS, AND WITH NO CALENDAR CHANGES DURING THAT TIME.

SO, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN CALCULATE WITH A CALCULATOR. YOU WOULD NEED A VERY ADVANCED PROGRAM THAT WOULD FACTOR IN ANY, AND ALL, LEAP YEARS DURING THOSE 483 YEARS, PLUS FACTOR IN ANY DISCREPANCIES DUE TO THE CALENDAR CONVERSIONS DURING THAT TIME!

Also, if you were to argue that this was based on the Hebrew Calendar, then you would have to go to NASA'S website and determine every single New Moon for those 483 years, and whether or not the barley harvest was ripe during Passover/First Fruits, or not.

Because the Hebrew Calendar could not have been based on a 360 day year, without any intercalation of leap years, or else the Hebrew Feast Days would have gone ALL OUT OF WACK, such that Passover eventually would have been celebrated in the FALL, and the FALL feasts would have eventually been celebrated in the SPRING.

THAT IS WHY WE HAVE LEAP YEARS IN BOTH THE ROMAN (JULIAN OR ANY OTHER CALENDAR THAT WAS USED DURING THOSE 483 YEARS), AS WELL AS THE HEBREW CALENDAR.

That is also why the Hebrew calendar depended on the sightings of the New Moon, as well as the ripening barley, because if the barley was not ripe yet, then Passover would have had to have been delayed for another month, among other possible adjustments that may have had to have been made, every so often.

BESIDES, IF THERE WAS EVER A TIME WHEN A STRICT 360 DAY CALENDAR WAS USED BY THE HEBREW PEOPLE, IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN AT A TIME, POSSIBLY, BEFORE THE EARTHS AXIS SHIFTED, SO THAT A 360 DAY YEAR WOULD FIT INTO THE LUNAR, AS WELL AS THE SOLAR CYCLE, SUCH THAT THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY SHIFTING OF THE SEASONS BY USING A STRICT 360 DAY YEAR, 30 DAY MONTH CALENDAR.

I'm aware of Anderson's calculation. He made several mistakes:

Since you yourself, admittedly, are aware that Sir Robert Anderson's calculations were in error, the fact that "POPULAR BIBLE TEACHERS" continue to teach that his calculations were accurate TO THE DAY, is nothing more than a HOAX, as are so many "popular" teachings today, that have NO SOLID BASIS, WHATSOEVER, but apparently people continue to choose to believe them, simply because they have been REPEATED SO MANY TIMES BY ALMOST EVERY "FAMOUS" MODERN DAY "THEOLOGIAN."

Sorry for the rant.

[watching]

Above post edited for clarity.

[Douggg]

:armor:
Well, I don't know where it originated, but it makes sense in that there is NO 7 year tribulation mentioned in the scripture...just 3.5 years called the Time of Jacob's trouble.

Since EVERYTHING in the scripture before Jesus points to Him and everything during the Gospels is about Him and everything else declares Him, I don't see why it is so hard to believe that HE fulfilled 3.5 years of the 70th week of Daniel and there is only 3.5 years left.

Just my .02 worth

Just curious, where in the bible are you finding the duration of the Time of Jacob's trouble stated to be 3 1/2 years?

Doug L.

[amessenger4god]

SO, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN CALCULATE WITH A CALCULATOR. YOU WOULD NEED A VERY ADVANCED PROGRAM THAT WOULD FACTOR IN ANY, AND ALL, LEAP YEARS DURING THOSE 483 YEARS, PLUS FACTOR IN ANY DISCREPANCIES DUE TO THE CALENDAR CONVERSIONS DURING THAT TIME!

Well, I did (just using a calculator, that is). There are 365.25 days in an actual year. That already factors in all leap years. 365.25 is the only number anybody in Daniel or Christ's time would need to know. The rest they could garner from Scripture, itself.

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that the people of Christ's time could not figure out the actual number of days that transpired between Artaxerxes' decree and Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem. In fact, I would think it would have been easier for them for several reasons:

1.) They had far more complete records than we currently do. Many of these records have simply been lost and many more were destroyed when the Library of Alexandria was burned down.

2.) Jesus' disciples would have known the exact date of Jesus' Triumphal Entry, having been direct eye-witnesses to the event.

Supposing Artaxerxes' decree was the prophesied decree, Jesus' contemporaries would only have to do two things:

1.) Count the number of day-night cycles between the decree and Jesus' arrival.

2.) Divide the number by 360.

That's it. Nothing more is required. The Bible itself gives them the Jewish date of Artaxerxes' decree; and as stated above, they would have known the EXACT date of Jesus' Triumphal Entry having been eye-witnesses. They were only 483 years removed from the decree, where as we are ~2450.

People back then were just as smart as we are today. They were meticulous record takers. They also knew math and astronomy very, very well. I'm sure they could have figured it out.

I'm not trying to tear your theory up, but I do need to point out two problems:

1.) Your 483-year period does not have precision. It only counts the years, not to the very day (as far as I know, unless I'm missing something you haven't told me). If my theory were off by several days it would still hold up to your theory's standard.

2.) Your theory places Jesus ministry in 27 AD, which is not possible since we know from Scripture that it began during or after Tiberius 15th year as Emperor (29 AD).

BESIDES, IF THERE WAS EVER A TIME WHEN A STRICT 360 DAY CALENDAR WAS USED BY THE HEBREW PEOPLE, IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN AT A TIME, POSSIBLY, BEFORE THE EARTHS AXIS SHIFTED, SO THAT A 360 DAY YEAR WOULD FIT INTO THE LUNAR, AS WELL AS THE SOLAR CYCLE, SUCH THAT THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY SHIFTING OF THE SEASONS BY USING A STRICT 360 DAY YEAR, 30 DAY MONTH CALENDAR.

The theory is not that the Jews held to a strict 360-day calendar, but that God uses the 360-day calendar when giving prophecy. That is why it is called the "Prophetic Calendar". It would make sense for God to use this calendar because calendars have changed constantly throughout history and it would remain the one consistent reference calendar. Also, a lot of Christians (myself included) believe that God created the Earth to revolve around the Sun in EXACTLY 360 days (just as there are EXACTLY 360 degrees in a circle). A 360-day calendar would be perfect. It is possible that God's judgment of the Earth (perhaps during the Flood) is what distorted the Earth's orbit and rotation.

God bless.

[watching]

Hi amessenger4god,

Well, I did (just using a calculator, that is). There are 365.25 days in an actual year. That already factors in all leap years. 365.25 is the only number anybody in Daniel or Christ's time would need to know. The rest they could garner from Scripture, itself.

First of all, you did not factor in any adjustments for the calendar conversion. The calendar did not just change OVER-NIGHT, you know. And there was at least one calendar change between b.c. and a.d., but there may have been others, as well, I'm not sure about that.

Second of all, you can't just use an average. You would have to know exactly when the leap years were, because for all you know, 445 b.c., or 33 a.d., or whatever other dates you may be assuming, may have been leap years, themselves. So an average is not good enough, you need to know whether they were leap years, or not. You also need to know exactly what the leap year adjustments were with those other calendars, because they may not have been every four years, like they are with our current calendar.

But, besides all of that, your calculations didn't even land on Palm Sunday, to begin with.

From what you said, your calculations landed on Monday, supposedly, which is one day too late to be precise, regardless.

The Bible itself gives them the Jewish date of Artaxerxes' decree;

It does?

1.) Your 483-year period does not have precision. It only counts the years, not to the very day (as far as I know, unless I'm missing something you haven't told me).

Daniel's prophecy was given in years (actually weeks of years), NOT DAYS.

If my theory were off by several days it would still hold up to your theory's standard.

I don't understand what you are saying here. But, in any case, your theory would HAVE TO BE PRECISE TO THE ACTUAL DAY OF PALM SUNDAY, because that would be the ONLY WAY, someone could possibly make the claim the the time of the CUTTING OFF of the Messiah, was actually the time of His COMING, instead.

2.) Your theory places Jesus ministry in 27 AD, which is not possible since we know from Scripture that it began during or after Tiberius 15th year as Emperor (29 AD).

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/15thyear.html

The theory is not that the Jews held to a strict 360-day calendar, but that God uses the 360-day calendar when giving prophecy. That is why it is called the "Prophetic Calendar". It would make sense for God to use this calendar because calendars have changed constantly throughout history and it would remain the one consistent reference calendar. Also, a lot of Christians (myself included) believe that God created the Earth to revolve around the Sun in EXACTLY 360 days (just as there are EXACTLY 360 degrees in a circle). A 360-day calendar would be perfect. It is possible that God's judgment of the Earth (perhaps during the Flood) is what distorted the Earth's orbit and rotation.

I agree with this, (in theory), but, in any case, the FLOOD, was BEFORE the time of DANIEL.

[Jay Ross]

Hello! Hello, is there really anyone there?

Daniel 9:26b has a time frame of around 2,000 years for the fulfilment of this half verse prophecy. The tribulation of all of Israel will continue until Israel repent of their idolatry which is also prevalent today. The tribulation associated with Daniel 9:26b does not end until the nation sees Jesus a far of in the clouds and around that same time, Satan is thrown into the bottomless pit for 1,000 years and so that there is a gap in the continuing of this prophecy. After Satan is released, he goes to the nations at the four corners and enters into a covenant arrangement with them so that they will follow him up to Jerusalem and when he enters Jerusalem he breaks his covenant agreement with the nations and attempts to install himself there as a god and as Daniel 9:27 states he is then dealt with. Daniel 7 also gives us an insight into this as well where we are told that the Saints would be troubled for around three and a half times/ages/days of the Lord. Revelation 20 tells us that Satan is thrown into the Lake of Fire, which is the second death that he denied existed to Eve.

So it is my view that Daniel 9:27 is still very much a future event around 1 k years into our future.

Shalom

Jay Ross.

[shorttribber]

Hi Dougg,

I just found this thread and question you asked initially....you know where I stand on 9:27. I'll tell you when Historicists first understood Daniel 9 as they did/do.....we are still around you know....and historically in good company.

It's interesting that just today i discovered, at least for myself, that the epistle of Barnabas (written probably around the same time as the Book of Revelation 90-96AD) has what is the first recognition of Christ building a "spiritual temple" over the course of ONE WEEK.
There is of course no other place that this week could be referred to other than Daniel 9:27. The epistle of Barnabas is not under any circumstance authoritative as far as scripture but is does speak to the first roots of what you have asked.

Now to look beyond that to what was a later version of Historicism we can then look to Anselm Havelberg(1129-1155), Rupert Deutz(1111-1129),and Joachim of Floris(1130-1201) who also pioneered the earliest forms of postmillennialism.

Then the Franciscans were historicists thru the 13th and 14th centuries. Joachim was the first , even loyal still to the church of Rome to recognize the beast as the Papacy.

Martin Luther and all the reformers followed suit in the 1500's and the system continued with adherents such as John Wycliffe, John Knox, William Tyndale,Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Philip Melanchton, Sir Isaac Newton Jan Huss John Foxe, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards George Whitefield, Charles Finney, C.H. Spurgeon, Mathew Henry, Adam Clarke, Albert barnes E.B. Elliott, H. Grattan Guiness, Mathew Poole, John Brown, Jamieson Faucett and Brown and the list goes on until Samuel R. Maitland, a librarian to the archbishop of Canterbury in 1827.

I'm not sure how much influence he had until the Plymouth Brethren and their leader John Nelson Darby championed futurism.

So there you have it...at least to the best I can provide the information I've learned.