Jim Larmore

I'm out of here guys, I gotta go transplant some blueberries. Have a great weekend.

Wallener

I don't understand how that makes any sense at all. The point of prophesy is to look forward, not to fit hindsight. Even if your mathematics made sense, the prophesy was by definition useless since nobody figured it out ahead of time. If you are 100%right in your interpretation, it means both Daniel and G-d *failed* to deliver the message you claim was meant to be delivered. I'm baffled how such logic works to the advantage of an inerrantist.

The process you are describing is nothing less than deconstructionism.

spin

I wish you more success with your blueberries. If you treat them like your history, they'll end up looking a bit like rhubarb and smelling like garlic.


spin

Koyaanisqatsi

Theistic circles, perhaps; regardless, whether it is "well established" or not is entirely irrelevant and a fallacious appeal to authority, so please never attempt to slip by a "fact" being "well established" in "scholarly circles," as that has no meaning.

What you can say is something along the lines of, "Is is the opinion of many scholarly theists that there are three decrees."

Clear? After all, the purpose of all of this is to get at and/or speak the Truth, yes? It doesn't help matters when you blatantly and deliberately attempt such sophistry.

I see. The writers didn't know what they were really saying? The translators of Young's were so profoundly stupid as to read "years" and write "weeks"?

I turn to one of your own so don't shoot the Atheist. From SearchGodsWord.org (they're referring to KJV and NIV indirectly, I do believe):

Young's Literal is preferrable precisely because the translators took painstaking caution to properly translate what was actually written whether or not it subsequently apologized for the glaring contradictions and inconsistencies (and downright lies) that the propagandists of the KJV and NIV put in.

Like what you write a little later:

"Prophetic" time? That's nothing more than disengenuous, apologetic nonsense; a spin to cover up the fact that the "prophecy" did not happen.

Which is...? What? Whatever the hell you want it to be so that it fulfills the prophecy?

Gabriel said "Seventy sevens" or "Seventy weeks." Take your pick. Not, "In a nebulous unknown period..." If "prophetic" time isn't literal, then it cannot possibly be considered "prophetic" now can it?

You are consistently hoisting yourself with your own petard.

If only you would.

No, it wasn't. Just read the goddamned passage. The only reason you're doing this dance is because it does not support prophecy. Daniel prays for his already fallen city; God answers his prayer by sending Gabriel down with a message because Daniel is so special in God's eye; the message is: You've got 70 weeks from now to get your shit together before his messenger--the Messiah--murders all the unholy ones by drowning and overseeing wars and stopping your people's divine out by sacrificing animals and grains and so on. The Messiah does not sacrifice himself at all. His job is undeniably clear; he is to help everyone get their shit together, turn off the divine pipeline for salvation and then murder all of those who couldn't get their shit together once the rampart has been made for God to arrive.

70 weeks before armeggeddon. That's it. Nothing mysterious or convoluted or absurd (beyond the obvious) and nothing whatsoever to do with anything that actually happened or with some heeb named Jesus.

Sorry. But it's not our fault that the Roman who wrote Mark and created the passion myth clearly had no clue about the Jewish-cult messianic mythology.

But since it is apparently impossible for you to read Daniel properly and must instead go to quite literally ridiculous lengths to force a prophecy that does not exist, I put it to you that your beliefs have turned you one hundred and eighty degrees away from truth and directly toward blatant propaganda, if not obvious lies.

But then, we're the liars and only you see the truth, so, be on your blissfully ignorant way and {insert your myth here}speed.

rexrex4

Two points, first you say ‘the Lord God gave us intelligent brains to figure this stuff out.’ And you couple this with claiming that: ‘The fasting time of Daniel would of course be taken as literal time as no could fast for 21 years’. How do brains figure into knowing what is what in the bible? Joshua made the sun stand still, Jesus turned water into wine. My god given ‘intelligent brains’ knows for sure that didn’t happen. And if Joshua can make the sun stand still how hard can it be for Daniel, who just got through spending the night with the lions, to fast for 21 years? One could say a miracle is a miracle is a miracle, they happen when and as how they will and god given brains knows of the ‘whatofsoever’ not. Could it be that you use those brains when it is convenient and discard them when get in the way of believing ‘the desired impossible’.

Second: do you subscribe to the multiple fulfillment doctrine which assumes that the prophecies (wherever the bible expositor finds it convenient) can have a first fulfillment, and a second fulfillment and maybe a third? If this doctrine is true then how can it be that there is a ‘prophectic time’ yardstick? You would seem to have used that yardstick up the first time the prophecy was fulfilled. To example this system; the so called virgin birth prophecy is said to have had a dual fulfillment as in Isaiah 7:14 which says; ‘behold a sign shall be given, a virgin shall give birth etc.’ and when critics object that the prophecy was fulfilled in a chapter or so later, these people respond: “yes it was, but the prophecy had a dual fulfillment, it was fulfilled then and again in the new testament with the birth of Jesus.�

unknown4

Personally, I think a good explanation is that it wasn't a reference to a "decree" at all, but rather a reference to Jeremiah, perhaps partially to 30:18 where he says Jerusalem would be rebuilt. After all, Daniel was reading the "books" of Jeremiah (interesting, as if there was more than one book? Although I have read it could mean scrolls instead of books. Anyway). Jeremiah had prophecied 70 years of desolation of Jerusalem, then it would be rebuilt. This is what Daniel had in mind I think.

Here is where you disagree with some fellow Christians who say it was the one in Nehemiah supposedly around 444 BCE, in the 20th year of an "Artaxerxes". Those passages, unlike the reference to the 7th year of an "Artaxerxes", actually mention a rebuilding of Jerusalem's "wall". So, why do you use the 457 BCE date instead of the 444 BCE date?

Well, do you accept the Desatir or claims of these Sikh prophecies at this website http://devilz541.tripod.com/etc, as fact, either as from God or a demonic source, or are you also skeptical concerning them? Just curious I suppose.

The NT mentions that Messiah was to come out of Bethlehem, but if you read Micah 5:2, it mentions Bethlehem-Eprathah, and it's possible all it was saying is that the person mentioned there would come from David's clan, not necessarily the city of Bethlehem. If every scholarly Jew of the time knew of Daniel 9 as referring to the Messiah, and that the Messiah was to show up on the scene around 30 CE, I'd think at least Paul, who was supposedly a Jew himself, supposedly studied under Gamaliel, would have shown these verses to the Jews. Yet, the NT is silent concerning such a showing. Odd to me.

Well, remember, Daniel 9:24 says, according to YLT, "Seventy weeks are determined for thy people, and for thy holy city, to shut up the transgression, and to seal up sins, and to cover iniquity, and to bring in righteousness age-during, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies."

Unless you can show that transgression was shut up, sins were seals, iniquities covered, age-during righteousness was brought in, vision and prophet were "sealed up", and the holy of holies was annointed, within the 70 weeks, I don't see how you can apply this to Jesus. This, instead, to me, sounds like an "end of the world" type of scenario, and a dawn of a new, sinless age. When did this happen?

Also, in verse 26, it says "the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end [is] with a flood, and till the end [is] war, determined [are] desolations."

What "people" were destroyed by Jesus during the 70 weeks? What end was with a flood during the 70 weeks? Till what end is war, determined are desolations?

Also, in verse 27, it says "And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and [in] the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one."

What did Jesus do in the "midst of the week" by the "wing of abominations" that made it desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is poured on the desolate one?

This seems a bit strained to me to apply to Jesus. In fact, I'd say your interpretation would be objected to even by fellow Christians. Don't most Christians see the "Leader" of verse 26 and the "he" of verse 27 to be the anti-Christ? And don't most Christians see a gap of 35 years or so, or even almost 2000+ years between the 69th week and the 70th week?

spin

Koy,

The text says that Daniel was musing over the 70 years of Jeremiah (9:1-2). The angel comes along and tells him that it's really 70 sevens. That it is years is obvious. Normally when we are dealing with weeks, the form of "sevens (plural)" in Hebrew is $B(WT, rather than as it is here $B(YM. (Incidentally, a jubilee is a week of weeks of years.)

Hebrew has no verb tense at all. It only has a few verb aspects, which in Hebrew indicate whether an action is complete or not. Young's translates everything in the present tense, using either present simple or present perfect as the main verb indications, so, while English requires tense information, Young's being a literal translation opts not to give tense information, so you need to know something about both Hebrew and what Young's does in order to make linguistic arguments based on it.


spin

Anat

Compare that with YHWH commanding Elijah to anoint both Hazael as king of Aram and Jehu as king of Israel in 1Kings 19:15-18. When it is important for YHWH's plans the leader of any nation can be his anointed. (Eventually it was Elisha who inspired Hazael to take command, and he didn't actually anoint him, as far as 2Kings 8 tells, though.)

Amaleq13

Have you come up with a credible reason for considering the beginning of his ministry as the appearance of the Messiah? Let's review the one's you've tried so far:

It isn't when he took on his messianic duties because that wasn't until he was crucified and resurrected.

It isn't when he became a priest because Hebrews tells us he was not a priest while on earth but only in heaven after the resurrection.

It isn't when he made his identity as the Messiah known because that wasn't until he entered Jerusalem.

Unless you have a legitimate reason to identify this particular point as when the Messiah arrives, it really looks like you've only chosen it to make the math appear to work.

unknown4

I just found something interesting about the word translated "weeks". I had previously read that only in Daniel 9 was this "special" use of weeks, a masculine instead of feminine plural was found. But, and I don't know Hebrew, so I could be wrong in this, according what I possibly recall seeing on http://www.blueletterbible.com, and according to this webpage, http://www.bibleinsight.com/daniel10.html, the word used for "weeks" in Daniel 10:2,3 is the same as the one used for "weeks" in Daniel 9:24-26. If this is true, then this could argue against the idea that Daniel was using some "special" form of weeks in Daniel 9:24-26. However, since the word translated "full" in the "three full weeks" of Daniel 10:2,3 is the word normally translated days I guess, meaning the phrase should be "three weeks of days", this could be an argument against Daniel 9:24-26 being merely normal weeks. It's just something interesting I thought I'd share if you or anyone else is interested.