• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.

Finally, The Correct Interpretation of the 70 Weeks Prophecy in Daniel

Not while you are so dismissive. I need to know for myself that it is worth it. Some things are and others are worthless.

While the crucifixion happened on a certain date, have you ever noticed that Isaiah has 66 chapters and no dates RE Messiah. You do not win the big prize just bc you can establish a date.

I know hundreds of date setters who don’t grasp why the kingdom of God in Daniel 2 is a flying boulder, and not the next precious metal.

You just dismissed the previous post out of your own fears. When you have a reasonable reply to them, I’ll read further.
 
Not while you are so dismissive. I need to know for myself that it is worth it. Some things are and others are worthless.

While the crucifixion happened on a certain date, have you ever noticed that Isaiah has 66 chapters and no dates RE Messiah. You do not win the big prize just bc you can establish a date.

I know hundreds of date setters who don’t grasp why the kingdom of God in Daniel 2 is a flying boulder, and not the next precious metal.

You just dismissed the previous post out of your own fears. When you have a reasonable reply to them, I’ll read further.
Your loss. Not mine. You are so funny. How do you know if it's worth it unless and until you get off your high horse and actually read something. LOL.
 
While the crucifixion happened on a certain date, have you ever noticed that Isaiah has 66 chapters and no dates RE Messiah. You do not win the big prize just bc you can establish a date.
Have you ever noticed that Isaiah doesn't have to give a date because that was not his prophetic mission? Instead he gives the signs that would accompany the appearance of the true Messiah. He predicts the arrival of the Magi who came to worship the infant. Of course, he doesn't call them "magi". He predicts where they would be from. He predicts that they would be following a sign shown in the heavens. This is why Matthew includes them in his narrative since his purpose is to point out all the prophecies that were fulfilled by Messiah Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Your loss. Not mine. You are so funny. How do you know if it's worth it unless and until you get off your high horse and actually read something. LOL.


Bc of certain things you've said, things you've missed, things you are silent about, and your cocky attitude.
 
Have you ever noticed that Isaiah doesn't have to give a date because that was not his prophetic mission? Instead he gives the signs that would accompany the appearance of the true Messiah. He predicts the arrival of the Magi who came to worship the infant. Of course, he doesn't call them "magi". He predicts where they would be from. He predicts that they would be following a sign shown in the heavens. This is why Matthew includes them in his narrative since his purpose is to point out all the prophecies that were fulfilled by Messiah Jesus.

Oh, that's good for that one thing. I mentioned the other day there are 2500 allusions to the OT by the NT and you dwelt on one NOT used by the NT as a support. You can't get back first impressions. I seek material (I believe we all should) that are strong in the center of NT use of the OT. And among the 1st 20 used by the apostles, Ps 2, 16, 110 and 118 were repeated. That should shape most of what we think.

In Isaiah, there are sweeping images of so many other things than a "gotcha-with-an-exact-date" and I hope you find out about them.

Most solid Christian scholarship has enough in common that they don't have to exclude others, hide their material, play the "I'm the expert here" game.

So try to provide reasons, not demands, for reading you/listening to you.
 
Oh, that's good for that one thing. I mentioned the other day there are 2500 allusions to the OT by the NT and you dwelt on one NOT used by the NT as a support. You can't get back first impressions. I seek material (I believe we all should) that are strong in the center of NT use of the OT. And among the 1st 20 used by the apostles, Ps 2, 16, 110 and 118 were repeated. That should shape most of what we think.

In Isaiah, there are sweeping images of so many other things than a "gotcha-with-an-exact-date" and I hope you find out about them.

Most solid Christian scholarship has enough in common that they don't have to exclude others, hide their material, play the "I'm the expert here" game.

So try to provide reasons, not demands, for reading you/listening to you.
Actually the reason I pointed it out is that Matthew DOES reference Isaiah's prophecy. That is the whole POINT. That you missed it is very telling. Get off your high horse already.
 
Actually the reason I pointed it out is that Matthew DOES reference Isaiah's prophecy. That is the whole POINT. That you missed it is very telling. Get off your high horse already.

I already knew and you are not absorbing what I'm saying.

Let's try this: I gave you my linguistic experience because you said a person needs to be linguistically informed. Like medicine, this is not something a person should ever do on their own. After I gave mine, you dismissed it as worthless, ie, a lose-lose proposition.

Can you not see how confusing that is?

Last warning before permanent ignore.
 
I already knew and you are not absorbing what I'm saying.

Let's try this: I gave you my linguistic experience because you said a person needs to be linguistically informed. Like medicine, this is not something a person should ever do on their own. After I gave mine, you dismissed it as worthless, ie, a lose-lose proposition.

Can you not see how confusing that is?

Last warning before permanent ignore.
Don't worry, I don't take anything you are saying seriously. You've shown yourself to be ignorant of a great many things. And refuse to accept correction. Or even do any kind of research. Your opinion means nothing.
 
I already knew and you are not absorbing what I'm saying.
"I already knew". Oh really? I'll call you out on that one because that research is original to me. I did a lot of due diligence to determine if anyone had ever determined the accurate connection to Matthew before. No one had.
 
"I already knew". Oh really? I'll call you out on that one because that research is original to me. I did a lot of due diligence to determine if anyone had ever determined the accurate connection to Matthew before. No one had.

You said it had an exact date.

You should be studying what the NT says about teachers who are unteachable, arrogant, isolated. It isn't pretty.

Goodbye.
 
You said it had an exact date.

You should be studying what the NT says about teachers who are unteachable, arrogant, isolated. It isn't pretty.

Goodbye.
Of course you wouldn't address that I called you out for saying you knew something when it is obvious that you did not.
 
Communication is not what we say, it’s what they hear.
 
Ezra 6:14 states that there were more than just 3 decrees from earthly kings that allowed for the rebuilding of the temple (and by extension, rebuilding Jerusalem). There was a fourth. In addition Ezra seems to list the earthly decrees in chronological order. That would suggest that the decree by God, which no one recognizes, happened BEFORE the one from Cyrus. Where is this decree? Why does no one recognize or address this?
Various individuals have already addressed this. Perhaps you have just not encountered them yet.

As you have said, there were, of course, more than just three decrees. If you consider the one given by God to be an additional decree, then there were a total of five decrees: the original one by God Himself, repeated by Cyrus, then by Darius, and two decrees by Artaxerxes I - one in the seventh year of his reign, and one in the 20th year of his reign, found in Nehemiah 2.

Since the stipulations of the decree mentioned by Daniel 9 particularly mentioned the building of Jerusalem's walls and street in "troublous times", the only one of the decrees which particularly dealt with rebuilding these things under stressful times was the one given in Nehemiah 2 by Artaxerxes I in his 20th regnal year.

And since Artaxerxes began a co-regency with his father in 474 BC, the actual 20th year of his reign fell in 454 BC. The book of Nehemiah tells of this rebuilding process of the walls and gates during those "troublous times" of Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem's harassment, and with the street in front of the temple finally used for the congregation to assemble in the seventh month's ceremonies.

Counting forward the 70 weeks of 490 years from 454 BC onward, everything lines up for all the terms of the prophecy to be fulfilled by AD 37. The people of Israel in AD 30 were well aware that Messiah was to show up then (at the beginning of the 70th week). This is why the Pharisees in John 1 sent a delegation to John the Baptist to find out if he was the prophesied one to come. "All the people were in expectation", and were musing in their hearts whether John was the Messiah Christ or not (Luke 3:15). Even the Samaritan woman at the well knew that Messiah was coming and would tell them all things when he arrived.

When Christ Himself in Mark 1:15 at the beginning of His miraculous public ministry in AD 30 told the people, "The time is fulfilled...", He meant that the 69 weeks of years of the prophecy were finished, and that the 70th week of the prophecy with the coming of the Messiah unto His people had just begun.

When the majority of that generation of Jews finally realized that Jesus was not going to be a military-type of Messiah to deliver them from Rome, they rejected Him and His message, thus sealing their doom by AD 37, when they had "judged themselves unworthy of eternal life", and the gospel focus turned to concentrate on the Gentiles. This "sealed up" judgment by the end of the 70th week was poured out on that generation of Israelites later in the "Days of Vengeance" which came upon them in the AD 66-70 "Great Tribulation" period that Daniel 12 wrote about.
 
Various individuals have already addressed this. Perhaps you have just not encountered them yet.

As you have said, there were, of course, more than just three decrees. If you consider the one given by God to be an additional decree, then there were a total of five decrees: the original one by God Himself, repeated by Cyrus, then by Darius, and two decrees by Artaxerxes I - one in the seventh year of his reign, and one in the 20th year of his reign, found in Nehemiah 2.

Since the stipulations of the decree mentioned by Daniel 9 particularly mentioned the building of Jerusalem's walls and street in "troublous times", the only one of the decrees which particularly dealt with rebuilding these things under stressful times was the one given in Nehemiah 2 by Artaxerxes I in his 20th regnal year.

And since Artaxerxes began a co-regency with his father in 474 BC, the actual 20th year of his reign fell in 454 BC. The book of Nehemiah tells of this rebuilding process of the walls and gates during those "troublous times" of Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem's harassment, and with the street in front of the temple finally used for the congregation to assemble in the seventh month's ceremonies.

Counting forward the 70 weeks of 490 years from 454 BC onward, everything lines up for all the terms of the prophecy to be fulfilled by AD 37. The people of Israel in AD 30 were well aware that Messiah was to show up then (at the beginning of the 70th week). This is why the Pharisees in John 1 sent a delegation to John the Baptist to find out if he was the prophesied one to come. "All the people were in expectation", and were musing in their hearts whether John was the Messiah Christ or not (Luke 3:15). Even the Samaritan woman at the well knew that Messiah was coming and would tell them all things when he arrived.

When Christ Himself in Mark 1:15 at the beginning of His miraculous public ministry in AD 30 told the people, "The time is fulfilled...", He meant that the 69 weeks of years of the prophecy were finished, and that the 70th week of the prophecy with the coming of the Messiah unto His people had just begun.

When the majority of that generation of Jews finally realized that Jesus was not going to be a military-type of Messiah to deliver them from Rome, they rejected Him and His message, thus sealing their doom by AD 37, when they had "judged themselves unworthy of eternal life", and the gospel focus turned to concentrate on the Gentiles. This "sealed up" judgment by the end of the 70th week was poured out on that generation of Israelites later in the "Days of Vengeance" which came upon them in the AD 66-70 "Great Tribulation" period that Daniel 12 wrote about.
The main point is the START of the 70 weeks. Your writeup does not have that correct. Only the proper interpretation that I outline deals with the subject in an historically and Scripturally accurate way.
 
The main point is the START of the 70 weeks. Your writeup does not have that correct. Only the proper interpretation that I outline deals with the subject in an historically and Scripturally accurate way.
When you add an arbitrary half week to the end of the 70 weeks of years, you are adding to scripture and corrupting the prophecy. This is not accurate or scriptural.

When you add gaps, which scripture never does when speaking of the duration of a prophecy, you are also adding to scripture and corrupting the prophecy. This also is not accurate or scriptural.

The start of the 70 weeks prophecy is clearly described in Daniel 9:25. Nehemiah 2's decree in Artaxerxes I's 20th year of his reign in 454 BC follows that description, as none of the other decrees do.
 
When you add an arbitrary half week to the end of the 70 weeks of years, you are adding to scripture and corrupting the prophecy. This is not accurate or scriptural.

When you add gaps, which scripture never does when speaking of the duration of a prophecy, you are also adding to scripture and corrupting the prophecy. This also is not accurate or scriptural.

The start of the 70 weeks prophecy is clearly described in Daniel 9:25. Nehemiah 2's decree in Artaxerxes I's 20th year of his reign in 454 BC follows that description, as none of the other decrees do.
Adding half a week? No where do I say that. You are stating untruth.

The gaps in the 70 Weeks are very easy to see if you read the original text in Hebrew. I explain this in great lengths and if you can actually find fault with it, please do. No one has been able to once they actually research the topic.

The start of the 70 weeks is not by an earthly king. Ezra clearly states it was God that started the 70 wees count down.
 
After comparing the various alternate English translations of Daniel 9:25 and showing just how much they vary in timing the periods of Weeks, there's another major issue to consider. Anyone whose interpretation combines the first 7 Weeks together with the next 62 Weeks needs to also combine the following 1 Week with the final 1/2 Week. They MUST deal with the 70 1/2 Weeks Prophecy. Yes. 70 and 1/2 Weeks as their text reads.

How is that possible? Why have they missed this all this time? They just don't know what the Hebrew text says.

Daniel 9:25 Hebrew text literally says "weeks seven and weeks sixty and two". They take a look at this (usually just in the English) and happily combine it all together to get 69 Weeks.

But they MUST be consistent and do the same with Daniel 9:27. The Hebrew text literally says "week one and half the week". Add it together in the same way. 1 1/2 Weeks. If you add it together in verse 25, you must do the same thing in verse 27.

69 + 1 1/2 = 70 1/2 Weeks.
This above from your post in reply #7 sounded as if you were proposing an extra 1/2 week beyond the 70. Upon my closer reading, you are accusing others of doing this. My apologies for thinking this was your own viewpoint being expressed.

But those of us who read the account as scripture adding up the 7 plus 62 plus 1 to equal a total of 70 weeks of years with no gaps are not including an extra half week at the end. In that you are mistaken. The language doesn't lead to this at all. It is 70 weeks total that were determined, and not 70 plus one half week, or even extra periods in between allowed for gaps. Neither of these things align with the strict 70-weeks of years in total which Daniel stipulates. When gaps are added in between, this is no different that slapping an extra half week on at the end of the 70 weeks of years. No difference.

God was behind all the decrees given. God used the earthly means of the Persian kings to bring about His designed purpose. Ezra's weeping prayer to God in Ezra 9:9 gives credit to God who "hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem." Daniel 11:1 also mentions the role which Michael and the other angelic prince both had to "confirm and strengthen" Darius the Mede in order for the next decree to be given.
 
Last edited:
This above from your post in reply #7 sounded as if you were proposing an extra 1/2 week beyond the 70. Upon my closer reading, you are accusing others of doing this. My apologies for thinking this was your own viewpoint being expressed.

But those of us who read the account as scripture adding up the 7 plus 62 plus 1 to equal a total of 70 weeks of years with no gaps are not including an extra half week at the end. In that you are mistaken. The language doesn't lead to this at all. It is 70 weeks total that were determined, and not 70 plus one half week, or even extra periods in between allowed for gaps. Neither of these things align with the strict 70-weeks of years in total which Daniel stipulates. When gaps are added in between, this is no different that slapping an extra half week on at the end of the 70 weeks of years. No difference.
See. It is in proper reading and comprehending. Apology accepted. However, you are mistaken. It is the English translations which do not treat the original Hebrew correctly and do not treat the text consistently. If they did, they MUST add another 1/2 week into their translation. obviously, this would be wrong and so they don't do that.
 
Back
Top