unknown4

You're using the start date you want. I think the "start date" was actually something in the book of Jeremiah. After all, that's what "Daniel" is portrayed as reading, referring to the 70 years of Jerusalem's desolation. Jeremiah 25, and/or 29:1-23, particularly verses 10 and 11 and/or 30:18, prophecied supposedly around 587BCE. 49 years after that takes one to around 538BCE when Cyrus issued a decree, not that I think that's needed. It could simply be referring to Cyrus regardless, since I think the start date was in the book of Jeremiah, not a decree by Cyrus. So, from the "going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem", mentioned in Jeremiah 25 and/or 30:18, until an anointed one [Cyrus], there shall be 7 weeks. Fits about right I think. After all, the book of Isaiah actually calls Cyrus an annointed, doesn't it?

As for the 62 weeks, I think "Daniel" was trying to fit his time frames, patterning the 70 years of Jeremiah by making them 70 weeks. From what I've read, the 2nd anointed one would be the high priest Onias III who was murdered. The time is around 60 something years off, or fairly close if one takes the "7 weeks" to be part of the "62 weeks", but like I said, I think "Daniel" was trying to fit his history in a pattern of 70 weeks of years to make it similar to Jeremiah's 70 years. That would make the "people of the prince who shall come", Antiochus Epiphanes' men and Antiochus himself. In my view, that is.

Although, I did see one creative interpretation that actually got the dates to essentially fit from 539BCE as a decree from Cyrus to Antiochus Epiphanes at 167BCE by focusing on the idea that Daniel said 70 sevens. Take note of the 7's. Let me find the link: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/daniel.html

Creative. And it works. Who knows? Maybe it is the legitimate way to read Daniel 9:24-27. I'm kind of doubting it though, heh.

Wallener

You have opened a giant Pandora's box. According to your logic, if a statement in the 'Scripture' doesn't match your conception of reality, you can simply ignore grammar and vocabulary and construct a non-existent meaning out of thin air that does match your preconceptions. You are supposed to derive your beliefs FROM the text, not pick and choose textual definitions to match your beliefs.

There are all kinds of interpretations that (more or less) match up with historical events without requiring mangling text. Interesting that you would rather intentionally mangle the text of "scripture" than adjust your expectations.

Jim Larmore

Thats not what I'm doing at all. It seems to me you are trying to make this into more than it is. The verse is clearly laying out a time line for the "messiah the prince". The messiah the prince did indeed show up right on schedule from the 457 B.C. decree by Artaxerxes. There were no other messiahs that came before that so why are you so confuse?
That is what I have been doing. You're the one who seems spent on making a federal case out of the phrasiology of this verse. The only thing that makes sense to me is that it is just a cumulative way of saying 69. Like I said if there are some who can show some historical event at 7 weeks at 62 weeks in prophetic time then lets hear them.

ex-preacher

You seem to be missing the point, Jim. The prophecy was wrong. You are re-interpreting it to "make sense" to you. In other words, you're adjusting the text to fit what actually happened.

Amaleq13

No he didn't. He "showed up" when he was born, according to the author of Matthew (your preferred source), some time before Herod died c.4BCE. Or he "showed up" around 30/33 CE (take your pick) when he took on his uniquely defined duties as the Messiah. Or he "showed up" after being resurrected and beginning his role as Priest in heaven.

The fact that none of your attempts to defend your choice of the start of his ministry as the time of fulfillment have held up to scrutiny clearly reveals that your "interpretation" follows from the math.

Why didn't you just admit this from the beginning and save everybody a lot of time?

Wallener

spin was kind enough to lay out the Hebrew in excruciating detail. The text does NOT say what you claim it says. If you truly feel you have grounds to claim otherwise, go back to his post and SHOW US those grounds. If you can't, you are simply reading your beliefs into the text rather than basing your beliefs on the text.

I look forward to your detailed exposition.

spin

As you simply don't understand the meaning of anointed, of course you won't see an anointed coming seven weeks after anything. High priests were anointed in you note all the anointing of people in the priestly books of the pentateuch. One should be expecting a high priest, an anointed one, a prince, as Jeshua ben Jehozedeq, who was a high priest and who was crowned in Zech 6:11. Here we have an anointed one, a prince, none of your manipulated rubbish.

You are working under so many misconceptions because your scenario is conclusion driven. Of course you blunder on with Artaxerxes I who you misconstrue as the king Ezra indicates as Artaxerxes II, so that you can get 457 BCE which is where you want to be because of your calculations to the supposed start of Jesus's ministry. As you have plainly avoided this issue with the stop-gap trivial crap about Smerdis, it's plain that you are starting to become evasive in your apporach, not prepared even to look at the evidence in Ezra and compare it with the Persian king list to see your errors.

The fact is Dan 9:25 is about Cyrus who made possible the return to Jerusalem, gave back the temple treasure, sent them off to Jerusalem. The result of this was Sheshbazzar starting the process rolling then later Zerubbabel and Jeshua arrived, leading to the high priest being crowned. We have both the word going out from Cyrus and an anointed one, a prince, Jeshua.


spin

spin

At the beginning of a clause the W- has been translated as all those things and more, as the translator tries to seek the exact connection implied by the W- under the given circumstances. I've called it a "clause marker", when it's at the beginning of a clause, where it is so often found. Books even start with a W- as in Exodus and Leviticus for example. In those cases the W- is simply not translated as is the case in other situations.

An atnah is difficult to give a definite semantic or grammatical significance to.

I don't follow your thought. The way the text is worded says that the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks are contiguous, making 69 weeks.

...of holies -- ie the temple. As the heart of the temple is the holy of holies, ie the sanctuary, referring to the sanctuary is referring to the temple.

Destroying the city and the temple is a hyperbole, just as you find in 1 Macc 3:45, dealing with the same period, "Jerusalem was uninhabited like a wilderness... the sanctuary was trampled down, and foreigners held the citadel."

Ps 74 is often thought to be a reflection of the effects of the main onslaught of the Hellenistic Crisis. Others think it has been reworked from an earlier form to reflect the event. The people that the visions of Daniel were written to were outside Jerusalem fighting to regain it. A little propaganda is only to be expected.

The Hebrew word $XT is one of your basic "destroy" type words. But then, there was a party at my place the other week and the guests destroyed the place.


spin

spin

When Jim uses the expression "the messiah, the prince" he is perverting the text. Do not accept this. It is deliberate misrepresentation in order to deviously sell his lies. He must know by now that his is false logic based on false information.

1. He falsely attributes his decree to Artaxerxes I, who he sometimes confuses with Xerxes (I), when it should be clear from Ezra that the Artaxerxes he refers to is Artaxerxes II, who lived 50 years after the one his calculations want.
2. He plainly won't read Dan 9:25 for what it says, misrepresenting the text for his christianizing perversion of the text, changing "an anointed, a prince" to "the messiah, the prince".
3. He fails to consider the interrelatedness of all four visions of Daniel which relate to the one nexus of events, which revolve around a king stopping sacrifice, specifically the tamid, in the temple.

I would call into question his sincerity for the truth.

The last point above is true of most of the people who have written to this thread. You are not considering the relationship between Daniel 9 and the other visions which help to locate the context in time, ie to the period of the persecution under Antiochus IV. There are very many indications across all four visions.


spin

Anat

An atnah (literally rest) is one of the cantilation marks that serves as a major divisor of the verse at hand. It is second only to a verse end in the heirarchial subdivision of verses. If a verse is one sentence an atnah would be roughly the equivalent of a semi-colon. (I agree it is hard to generalize, as some verses are more than a single sentence.) So the massoretic reading definitely places the 7 weeks with the building of Jerusalem until the coming of an anointed as a separate idea from the 62 weeks.