spin

xristos is how the LXX translated M$YX. If "anointed one" and messiah are synonymous -- I guess M$YX is M$YX --, then how could Cyrus, called in Hebrew M$YX not also be xristos, as he indeed is in LXX Isaiah 45:1?

Actually you are mistaken here: the text doesn't say "messiah the prince", but "(a) messiah (a) prince". Definite articles change things radically. When you say "the", as in "the prince", the referent is already defined. In Daniel this is not the case. Just as interestingly the reference to an anointed one in 9:26 must be a different anointed one to that mentioned in the previous verse because it is indefinite. If they had been the same referent then the second usage would have had a definite article to show that it was the one already mentioned. Clearly we have two separate anointed ones.

Your christianizing interpretation doesn't match the language.


spin

spin

We've done this one to death. (Mt says nazwraios, Nazorean, not Nazarene. nazarhnos is mainly found in Mk.)

The prophecy is from Jgs 13 in which the coming child was Samson and he would be a nazeiraios from birth (Mt 2:23 has nazwraios) and he would save Israel - noting that "Jesus" means "Yah saves". (What's a vowel change amongst friends?)


spin

unknown4

Jim, that's not really how it's done in Hebrew to my knowledge. They might have rather said 60 and 9, not 7 and 62. Your explanation is poor, to me. If all the text meant was 69 weeks, without there being a legitimate distinction between 7 and 62, it should have said 60 and 9, from my knowledge. I think it rather should have just said "From the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem unto an annointed one, there shall be 60 and 9 weeks. It shall be rebuilt", etc, and "after the 60 and 9 weeks"..

unknown4

Genesis 3:15 uses the Hebrew word "zera" which was a singular which sometimes meant a plural. It could have simply meant snakes will strike the woman's offspring, while the woman's offspring shall strike the snakes. There was no actual plural for "seeds" in reference to human beings in Hebrew, to my knowledge. This is where "Paul", or whoever wrote Galatians, apparently messes up, when he claims that in reference to Abraham in Genesis there was "seed" meaning Christ, instead of "seeds". So, apparently "Paul" made an argument based on his incorrect understanding of a word. And "Paul" was supposedly a Jew who studied under Gamaliel.

spin

Someone still hasn't read the passage for what it says:

From the issuing of the building decree till an anointed one, a prince, there are seven weeks ([i]the seven weeks are delineated by the from and the till), and sixty two weeks will return that streets and moat will have been built, and troubled the times, and after 62 weeks an anointed one is cut off.

The decree, seven weeks later, an anointed one, a prince, sixty-two troubled weeks pass, and after those sixty-two weeks, an anointed one is cut off. The total so far from the decree till the cutting off of this last mentioned anointed one is sixty-nine weeks. The writer looks at three different points in time, separated by two durations, the first seven and the second sixty-two weeks. There is just one week left.

This week is the target audience's recent past. After half this week sacrifice and oblation are stopped in the temple and abominations will take their place. (We know this event historically.) So we are in the last half a week, at the end of which the prince responsible for the abominations, the desolator, will meet his end.


spin

Jim Larmore

I don't care how poor you feel my explanation is here. Your arguement is not against me but against many expositors both conservative and liberal. Nearly all of them say its a 69 week prophecy. Go argue with them. I've made my points and it feels like I'm beating my head against the wall here :banghead: .

BTW, none of what Spin says is Biblical at all on this. Theres no delineation of segmented times here. Its pure speculation on his part.

Amaleq13

You've made claims rather than "points" but you have failed to address serious problems with those claims that have been identified by several others. I suspect that those of us who have had their questions ignored share your frustration.

spin

Doesn't it feel like you're beating your head against the wall because you've backed the wrong Artaxerxes for you manipulation of Daniel?

Have you even gone back and read Ezra for what it says about Artaxerxes I and II? Have you checked out your erroneous flub about Smerdis?

You've concocted a crock of anti-historical connections and, if you still stick to it, I can understand that you are beating your head against a wall.


spin

spin

Do you want me to hold your hand and take you through the Hebrew, which I was using to give my comment? The grammar is blatantly clear. You have shown little knowledge of the text at all and little interest in what the text says.


spin

Wallener

It's not about it being a 69 week prophecy, it's about the text explicitly saying the annointed one comes 7 weeks into the 69 week period. And "nearly all" is clearly and completely unsupportable since a half dozen major english translations agree with the Hebrew text. Worse: since the Jerusalem Bible, official english version of the Catholic bible, states that Daniel was written in the 160s BCE, your position is not only nowhere near "nearly all", it is actually a minority position. And a shrinking one at that.