70 x 7

[hch]

As to Ezekiel 4:6 that was a local app only! The context of the passage does not allow you make a broad sweeping Principle out it. Again this is tortured logic in order to stretch the actual facts.

It would be interesting to hear your explanation of theis prophecy

Thanks

Henry

[hch]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

Ellen White did verify the day/year principle, miz3. She was just another voice, all though divinely inspired, that upheld this fundamental principle.

Of course if you reject Ellen White's counsel on this, there is sufficient evidence and biblical support to determine the day/year principle is correct anyway.

Ellen White may indeed have endorsed the year/day thing. However, the Bible does not!

You and Ellen White are entitled to your opinions on this topic. Ellen White was merely reflecting the prevailing opinions of her day and her group set!

It sounds like you are saying Ellen White added to the Bible?

Is that what you are intending to say?

Christian regards,

Henry

[phkrause]

Some really great stuff Lysimachus.

[hch]

There is no secondary application!

You are basing your whole premise on a false fact! That false fact is that the word "endtime" or as in Daniel 12:4 which you cited above "time of the end" means "some way down to our day or even further into the future".

The phrase "time of the end" could mean the time when the prophecy ends. It does not necessarily mean way into the future (as in our time now)!

For Daniel anything after his death would be future and the prophecy indeed was to end after his death. The events cited by Daniel could be explained quite rationally by things that happened after Daniel's death until the birth of Jesus Christ. You may not like such interpretations but they are nonetheless more valid than to think God meant something way down to our time.

The bottom line is that the phrase "time of the end" could mean the "the time of the end" of the prophecy! It is a valid point.

[Lysimachus]

The time frame of all unfulfilled visionary prophecy is still future. All fulfilled prophecy presented in scripture has transpired through the end of the 69th week of the 70 weeks of years decreed for national Israel. A week of years is the Jewish “heptad”. Each year represents 360 literal prophetic days. This calculates to a 7 year period of time or 2,520 days. The 69 weeks of years represent a time period of 173,880 prophetic days or 483 years

This time frame began at the decree to return and build the city Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity [under Persian rule] in 445 B.C. 483 prophetic years lapsed in about 33 A.D. and the Lord was then cut off at His first coming. There is one “heptad” (one 7 year period) remaining for the completion of the decreed amount of total time of 490 years and this 7 year period is still future. [Daniel 9; 12]

It is significant that the nation of unbelieving Israel is existing as an independent political entity in the land of Israel today after many centuries of domination by the Gentiles and exile from their land. They are there to experience the coming 70th week decreed for the nation which is still pending.

Israel's continuous intransigence against the Lord's providence and direction has resulted in the loss of His personal guidance and direction. Israel is still in this condition at the present time. His long term preservation of Israel's national identity is specifically for His ultimate plans and purposes ..... not Israel's self-generated nationalism. [Jeremiah 30; Ezekiel 36; 37; 38; 39]

The years following the reign of Israel's prominent kings David and his son Solomon included political division of the nation and subsequent invasion and assimilation of ten of the tribes of Israel by the Assyrians. Successive dominance of the remainder of the nation followed by the three empires of neo-Babylon, Persia, and Grecia.

The neo-Babylonians conquered what was left of the remnant, took many captives, and relocated the population. It was under the rule of the next empire, Persia, that a remnant of Israel was allowed to return to the land of Israel [445 B.C.]. This began the count down of the 70 weeks of years [490 literal prophetic years]. 483 years have lapsed with one 7 year period yet to be experienced by Israel after their second return from the nations of the Gentiles to the land of Israel. [Daniel 9:24-27]

If the death of Jesus occurred around 33 A.D. then the following calculation can be made. The time lapse would be 444 calendar years to the first century from 445 B.C. plus 33 additional years to equal 477 years. The conversion factor for 360 day prophetic years can be calculated by dividing 365 by 360 which is 1.0138. Prophetic years are shorter so there are more of them included in the time frame of 477 calendar years.

There are 483.5826 [477 x 1.0138] prophetic years in the time frame. If one adjusts this result by leap year days, the final calculation is very close to 483 years [69 weeks of years]. Daniel's vision of the time frame allows for this amount of time to lapse after which the Messiah Prince would be cut off and have nothing.

The last segment of 7 years [1 week of years] is still yet future and requires Israel's return in part to the Land of Israel from the nations. This final 7 years will include future prophetic events leading up to the visible return of Israel's Messiah who is Jesus Christ.

The covenant of 70 weeks of years is described in the 9th chapter of Daniel. The Lord will confirm this covenant by executing the last 7 years including the 6 objectives that will be met for national Israel at the time of the end which is still pending. These objectives must be met for national Israel at that time since most of the nation has been and is in the state of unbelief. Some will turn and accept their Messiah and King, Jesus Christ.

This period will be exactly 2,520 prophetic days long and there will be another 30 days and 45 days added. The Lord will turn on satan's beast and his kingdom of followers and destroy it during the 30 day period ending with the battle of Armageddon. The Lord will then appear to the world and gather all of the mortal survivors of the tribulations of the 70th week and separate them for entrance into His kingdom during the next 45 days.

[Lysimachus]

(Continued...)

I will now quote from Bob Pickle who did a profound job at dealing with these calculations:

Quoting Bob Pickle on the 70 Weeks of Daniel 9:

If we start the 70 weeks in 457 BC, then the first 69 weeks unto "Messiah the Prince" would end in 27 AD. Adventists identify this as being the year of Christ's baptism. At that time He was anointed with the Holy Spirit descending upon Him in the form of a dove (Luke 3:1, 22; Acts 10:38). Since the Hebrew word for "Messiah" and the Greek word for "Christ" both mean "the anointed one," it seems most logical to identify the coming of the Messiah of Daniel 9:25 with Christ's anointing at His baptism.

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" (Dan. 9:27). When Christ died after a ministry of 3½ years (31 AD), the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom (Mat. 27:51). Thus Christ showed that the sacrifices were to cease, since the true sacrifice for sin had been offered.

This leaves but half a week left of the prophecy, 3½ years, stretching to 34 AD. In Acts 7 we find Stephen being stoned as the first Christian martyr. Immediately after this the gospel started going to non-Jews: Samaritans, the Ethiopian eunuch, and the Roman centurion Cornelius, along with his household (Acts 8:4-39; 10). Gabriel had told Daniel, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people" (Dan. 9:24). It therefore seems logical to end the 70 weeks with the stoning of Stephen, for at that point the gospel began to go to the Gentiles, not just Daniel's people, the Jews.

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" (Dan. 9:27). For one week (7 years) the gospel, the new "covenant," was "confirmed" with "many," the Jewish nation: 3½ years during the ministry of Christ, and 3½ years after His resurrection. After that, it went to the Gentiles.

The first 490 days of the 2300 thus ended in 34 AD. The remaining 1810 years can be added to 34 AD to arrive at 1844.

Before it can be said emphatically that 1844 is "an error," a better interpretation than the above must be found. None has been found to date.

The most popular alternative interpretation today is the following, which is more complex than what was above, which should tell you something: The first 69 weeks stretch from Artaxerxes' supposed twentieth year in 445 BC to about the death of Christ, and the 70th week is yet future.

Sir Robert Anderson proposed multiplying the 69 weeks, or 483 days, by 360 days to the year, and then dividing this product by 365.25 days per year. By this method he reduced the 483 years to just over 476 years, a total of 173,880 days. He then began the time period on March 14, 445 BC, what he supposed was the first day of the first Jewish month of Nisan that year. Then he ended it with April 6, 32 AD, what he supposed was Nisan 10, Palm Sunday, the week Christ was crucified. The 70th week of Daniel 9 Anderson put off into the future to a yet unknown time (The Coming Prince).

There are a number of serious problems with Anderson's theory:

In making this calculation, he mistakenly added three leap days too few, owing to his misunderstanding the differences between the Julian and the Gregorian calendars. 173,880 days should really end on Thursday, April 3, not Sunday, April 6.

Nisan 10 could not have been earlier than Wednesday, April 9, in 32 AD, and so could not have been April 6. This is because the sighting of the new moon which begins the new Jewish month could not have occurred as early as Anderson's theory demands.

Thus, Nisan 14 would have been on a Sunday or Monday in 32 AD, not on a Thursday as Anderson supposed. Anderson tied the last supper to Nisan 14, with Christ dying on the 15th. If Nisan 14 was on a Sunday or Monday, that would put Christ's death on a Monday or Tuesday in disagreement with the gospel accounts.

The Jews of Elephantine used accession-year reckoning for Artaxerxes, and the Jews of that [p. 27] time used a fall-to-fall calendar (Horn and Wood, The Chronology of Ezra 7, pp. 75-90; Neh. 1:1; 2:1). A king's accession year ran from the date of his enthronement until the next New Year's day. In a fall-to-fall calendar this would be Tishri 1, sometime in September or October. Not till after the accession year did the king's first year of reign begin. In contrast, non-accession year reckoning has no accession year, but begins the first year of reign with the king's enthronement. Each year of reign still ends on New Year's day.

Xerxes was murdered sometime in 465 BC. An Aramaic papyri, AP 6, written on January 2, 464 BC, is still dated in Artaxerxes's accession year, meaning that his first year would not begin until Tishri 464 (Ibid., pp. 98-115, 172-174). This makes Nisan in his twentieth year 444 BC, not 445. So Anderson's starting date was a year off.

Daniel 9 requires a "commandment to restore and build." While we have record of a decree from Artaxerxes' seventh year in Ezra 7, we have no record of a decree from his twentieth year. So how can we commence the 70 weeks with the twentieth year?

The reason Artaxerxes's twentieth year is chosen is because it is thought that then is when the Jews were commanded to build Jerusalem. However, Cyrus had commanded this long before (Is. 44:28; 45:13).

Putting the seventieth week of Daniel 9 into the future ignores the linguistic ties between chapters 8 and 9, and the resulting connection between the 2300 days and the 490 days.

The method of reducing the 69 weeks of 483 years to only 476 years ignores the Jewish seven-year cycle, since the 483 years no longer coincide with 483 actual years.

The Israelites were to work their fields for six years, and then let the land keep a sabbath for the seventh year (Lev. 25:2-7). It is easy to see an allusion to this practice in Daniel 9's "70 weeks," "7 weeks," "62 weeks," and "1 week." In fact, many scholars of various persuasions have recognized just such a connection. One's interpretation of the 70 weeks ought to therefore coincide with actual seven-year sabbatical cycles.

The Adventist way of reckoning them indeed does. The fall of 457 BC began the first year, and the fall of 34 AD ended the seventh year of a seven-year cycle (see "When Were the Sabbatical Years?" posted at http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers). Thus, when 31 AD is identified as the date for Christ's crucifixion, the middle of the last week of seven years, it truly is the precise middle of a seven-year cycle.

End Quote of Bob Pickle's Article (Source)

For a full and thorough breakdown of all the math, see Bob Pickle's more detailed articles below:

1. "An Examination of Anderson's Chronological Errors Regarding Daniel 9's First 69 Weeks." Dispensational eschatology, as portrayed on Left Behind, depends on an adequate explanation of the first 69 weeks. Anderson is often quoted, and yet his theories are contradicted by plain facts about calendars and history.

2. “Dr. Harold Hohner’s Refinements of Ande...First 69 Weeks” - Acknowledges the four improvements over Anderson that Dr. Hoehner has provided. Examines the chronological difficulties still present in his calculations of Daniel 9's 70 weeks, and suggests an alternative interpretation unencumbered by such difficulties.

3. “When Were the Sabbatical Years?” - Re-examines Ben Zion Wacholder's evidence for his sabbatical dates, and concludes that the standard position was correct after all. Using Josephus, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, ancient inscriptions and documents, the Talmud, and Maimonides, when the sabbatical years were can be determined. And this all has a bearing on Daniel 9's 70 weeks.

[miz3]

It sounds like you are saying Ellen White added to the Bible?

We are now playing semantical games!

Ellen White was expressing her opinion which she is entitled to do. I believe she did so honestly to the best of her knowledge. I do not believe that when she expressed such opinions that she meant to elevate such things to the Scriptural level.

However, SDA have lifted ALL Ellen White's writings to the Scriptural level and that results in questions like you asked. Because SDA have lifted ALL Ellen White's writings to the level of Scripture anything that says different is attacked as if you have put Ellen White in a bad light.

This then is the inference of your question. To put me in a bad light or force me to put Ellen White in a bad light. Either way your question is intended to discredit me and my words.

I will not play your game!

You should be ashamed to ask me such a question in an effort to trap me. This is not being honest and you know it!

I never said Ellen White added to the Bible. I did say in this instance she was expressing her opinions which were typical of the opinions of others of her day!

Now if you want to have a discussion with me perfect honesty is the number one requirement which means no game playing. Such honesty is a rare characteristic within discussion groups!

[Lysimachus]

The 70 Weeks of Daniel 9 are a Part of the 2300 Days of Daniel 8

This is yet another reason why one cannot detach the 70th week from Daniel 9:24. We believe that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 are intrinsically tied to the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14. We believe that to reject the multiple textual and contextual links between the time periods mentioned in Daniel 8 and 9 would be to reveal a plain denial of the facts. The explanation of the 70 weeks by the angel Gabriel in Daniel 9 is an “extension” of the explanation of the time element of the vision given in Daniel 8 (since Daniel fainted and became ill, leaving Gabriel unable to finish the explanation of the time element of the vision). The 70 weeks were “cut off”, or “portioned out” of the 2300 years for the Jewish people (Another reason we cannot “detach” the 70th week and throw it into the future). 70 weeks was their probationary time to accomplish all that which is mentioned in Daniel 9:25. Because they failed to do this, the “kingdom” was taken from them and “given” to another nation (the gentiles). Matthew 21:43, 1 Peter 2:9.

It is important to realize that both the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 and the 2300 days of Daniel 8 are based on the "day-year-principle".

The “simple” Biblical appeal to this “day-for-year” principle is found in Ezekiel 4:6 and Numbers 14:34, and then not to mention that Daniel employs it in Daniel 9:24-27. Historicists believe that consistency demands that if we apply the 70 weeks to 490 years, and 1 week = 7 days, then we must be consistent with the 1260 days as well. The phrase “weeks of years” is an understood concept, although the phrase “weeks of years” does not exist in Daniel 9:24. It is just “shabuam”, meaning “weeks”. In order to get around this, Futurists say this word means “sevens”, not “weeks” to get “off the hook” of having to employ the day-for-year principle to the 70 weeks (because if they did acknowledge that the day-for-year principle is applicable to the 70 weeks, in order to be consistent, they would have to employ it also with the 1260 days/42 months/time, times, half a time of Daniel 7 and Revelation 11, 12 and 13!). But scholars have refuted this, and have proven that “shabuam” can only mean “weeks”, not “sevens”. Now of course, there is no doubt that the word “week” itself does mean 7, but it is a word being employed to mean “7 days”. But if they really want to squeeze blood out of this turnip, we could get just as technical and say that we prefer to use “months of years” in Revelation 13. Or even go so far as to say that “month” = 30. (30 x 42 = 1260).

We believe that in prophetic language, especially where symbolism is employed, the day-for-year principle must be sacredly recognized and guarded. This is ABSOLUTELY essential if we are gong to come to correct interpretations of eschatology and avoid theological shipwreck. We base this principle on Ezekiel 4:6, Numbers 14:34, and at least 80 other Biblical day-for-year parallels found in the sacred writings. To name a few prophetic time periods, we dogmatically recognize the 42 months of Revelation 13 as “months of years”, the 2300 evening-mornings of Daniel 8 as “days of years”, the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 as “weeks of years”, the 10 days of persecution on Smyrna in Revelation 10 as “days of years”, and the 3 ½ days of Revelation 11 as “days of years”. We believe the prophetic events that transpired meet these specified time periods with exact precision, and are not “spiritualized” away. We wholeheartedly submit that Dispensationalism’s refusal to adopt the day-for-year principle in their eschatological reckoning lies at the heart in spelling out their faulty conclusions of end-time Bible prophecy.

Great sources concerning the “Day-Year” Principle of the 70 Weeks:

1. Twenty Reasons to Apply the Year/Day Principle (PDF) – by Pastor Stephen Bohr (I encourage you to read the full thing, but pay particular attention to Reason #6 on page 4), and another one: "Seventy Sevens” or “Seventy Weeks” (PDF)?

2. The Day-Year Principle on Daniel 9:24-27 (PDF) – by Frank W. Hardy, Ph.D (Very exegetical, and very in-depth—to this day has not been refuted)

3. Eighty Year-Day Parallels (PDF) – by Frank. W. Hardy, Ph.D. (And for more articles covering the “Year-Day Principle”, click here)

2300 evening-mornings = 2300 days = 2300 years (Daniel 8:14)

It is important keep in mind that the 70 Jewish scribes who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek, making the Septuagint, unanimously qualified the “evening-mornings” by using the Greek word “days”—the term “evening-mornings” was used by Daniel because he was using artistic “sanctuary language” concerning the lamps that burned “always”, or “daily” in the sanctuary (See for example: Exodus 27:20, 21; Leviticus 24:2,3). The Hebrew word for “evening” is EREB, and for “morning”, BOQER. In other words “ereb-boqer”. Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31, all testify that an “evening” (ereb) and a “morning” (boqer) = a day. Dispensationalists have tried to cut this argument down by saying that “evening-morning” represents “evening and morning sacrifices or burnt offerings”, and therefore, since there was a sacrifice or burnt offering in the evening and in the morning, that means we must cut the 2300 in half to 1150 days. Then they try to fit 1150 days into Antiochus IV Epiphanies’ desecration of the Jewish temple. The problem is, according to Maccabees, Antiochus desecrated the temple for exactly 3 years to the day, or 1095 days. Therefore, Antiochus (along with a HOST of other reasons) does not fulfill this prophecy. It’s 55 days off. And finally, ALL temple sacrifices and burnt offerings were NEVER offered from “evening and morning”, but rather “MORNING AND EVENING” (see 1 Chron 16:40; 2 Chron 2:4; 13:11; 31:3; 2 Kings 16:15; and Ezra 3:3) In that order! The fact that Daniel used “evenings and mornings” in Daniel 8:14 is significant, and lends credence to the fact that Daniel meant full days, as a day is from evening to morning, not morning to evening according to Genesis 1. And since 2300 literal days = 6.4 years, and Antiochus only desecrated the temple for 3 years, we have no choice but to apply the 2300 evening-mornings to years, and since the “70 weeks” of Daniel 9:24 are “cut off” from the 2300 years of 8:14, that means the 2300 years end in 1844 if we begin in 457 B.C. (which I believe is the only possible date as we shall soon see) I’ve done the math hundreds of times, and it is VERY precise! Not to mention that in Daniel 8, the context demands that the 2300 year period stretch to the “time of the end” [8:17,19].

For a more detailed study on the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 and how it is intrinsically tied to the 2300 days of Daniel 9, see Pastor Stephen Bohr's Notes on Daniel 9.

[Lysimachus]

Breaking Down Daniel 9:24-27

Let us begin by quoting the full context of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:

"(24) Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. (25) Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. (26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. (27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." (Daniel 9:24-27)

Without delving into any of the mathematical time elements of this prophecy, I am going to break down the verses in relation to the Messiah the Prince. Dispensationalists take the “he” in the last verse (27) and apply it to a future Antichrist who will put a stop to the Temple sacrifices in the midst of the 70th week, or just say in the middle of a “future 7 year tribulation”. In essence, they decapitate the 1 week off the first 69 and throw it WAY into the future inserting an infamous “gap” of about 2000 years between the 69th and 70th week! Allow me to elaborate upon the many reasons why I believe this approach is impossible. I believe that without any predispositions whatsoever, a plain sense of the reading of verse 27 clearly leads one to believe “1 week” follows the 69th week in sequential order, and that the “he” in verse 27 is Jesus Christ, the Messiah, not Antichrist.

Futurist authors such as Mathison and Dr. Fruchtenbaum argue that the antecedent to “he” in verse 27 is the “prince” in verse 26. And since it is assumed that the “prince” in verse 26 is an antichrist or evil ruler that desolates, the conclusion is that the “he” in verse 27 cannot be referring to Jesus Christ. I beg to differ. I tend to lean toward a strong possibility that the “prince” of verse 26 is also speaking of Jesus Christ. However, I argue that whether the “prince” in verse 26 is referring to an evil ruler or Jesus Christ, it makes no difference! Even if the prince in verse 26 is referring to an evil ruler or an antichrist, the chiastic structure of verses 25-27 eliminates the requirement for the “he” of verse 27 to be equated with the “prince” in verse 26. Take note to the following graph: CHIASM OF DANIEL 9:25-27

The three interpretations of the “prince” in verse 26 are as follows:

1. First, the “prince that shall come” can apply to Titus, who tried to protect the Temple, but his soldiers destroyed it anyway against his explicit orders. This does seem to fit the historical evidence.

2. Alternatively, this can be interpreted as Jesus being the “prince that shall come”. Following this logic, the unbelieving Jews through their rebellion against God and Roman rule, brought about the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. The city and sanctuary were destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Roman general Titus, crushing the Jewish rebellion, fulfilling this prophecy. The unbelieving Jews had rejected the ultimatum contained in the 70 week prophecy, and their destruction and scattering in 70 A.D. was the result. Both interpretations appear to fit. “the people of the prince that shall come” – it is the people of the prince who is to come who will destroy the city and the temple, not the prince himself.

3. A yet future Antichrist who will yet come and rule in a coming Third Temple.

Interpretations 1 and 2 fit well with the grammatical structure and historical data, and although I am open to both interpretations, I prefer the second. As with the third interpretation, I have nothing historically to measure it with, nor do I find any good reason to cast it into the future based on the data that has been presented thus far, and forthcoming data.

Professor William H. Shea breaks it down nicely:

Quote:

Who are the “people of the ruler [or “prince,” Hebrew: nagid]” who carried out this destruction? The Romans clearly destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70, so it has been suggested that this verse refers to the Roman people, or army, and that the “ruler” must refer either to the Roman general who led the army against Jerusalem or to the Caesar who ordered the attack. This generalization, however, fails to take into account some of the specific language used here.

The word used here for “prince” or “ruler,” is nagid, the same word used in verse 25 for “the Anointed One, the ruler,” also known as Messiah, the Prince. Note the following pattern of word used in this prophecy:

verse 25 - - - - Messiah - - nagid

verse 26a - - - Messiah - - - ----

verse 26b -------- - - - - - - nagid

In verse 25, the designation, “Messiah nagid,” forms a word pair—“the Anointed One, the ruler”—so that the two words are linked in a technical way. Verse 26a breaks the word pair apart and uses the first word of the pair. Then verse 26b uses the second pair of the pair. This pattern suggests that all three references are to the same Messiah Prince designated by the first occurrence of this word pair in verse 25. If so, then “the people of the ruler who will come” refers to the people of the Messiah. It is they who are going to destroy Jerusalem and the sanctuary. The Messiah was a Jewish figure, and thus His people must be the Jewish people of that time. This same point is emphasized here by the use of the word “people” instead of the more correct military term “host” or “army.” [Note: It should also be mentioned that the word “people” is employed 7 times in chapter 9, and every single time it is in reference to Daniel’s people, the Jews. In fact, the word is used a total of 25 times in the entire book of Daniel, and never once is it used to represent armies.]

If this interpretation is correct, in what sense did the people of the Jewish Messiah Prince destroy the city and the sanctuary in A.D. 70? The Roman army was indeed the physical agent which brought about the literal destruction of Jerusalem. But why did they destroy it? They did so because Judea had rebelled against Rome. If Judea had not rebelled, the Roman army would never have come there and Jerusalem would have been spared. We are dealing here with causes and resulting events. The cause of Jerusalem’s destruction was the Jewish rebellion; the event which resulted from that rebellion was the destruction of the city and its temple. In that sense, it can be said that the people of the Jewish Messiah Prince caused or brought about the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

The final phrase of verse 26 amplifies the picture of that war and its consequences. “The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.” The figurative language of the flood is a very apt description for the way the Roman army finally flowed into Jerusalem to conquer it. Isaiah described the assault of the Assyrian army in similar language: “Therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty flood waters of the River—the king of Assyria with all his pomp. It will overflow all its channels, run over all its banks and sweep on into Judah, swirling, over it, passing through it and reaching up to the neck. Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, O Immanuel!” (Isaiah 8:7, 8 ). In the same way, Daniel prophesies, the Roman army will overflow Jerusalem and its temple like a flood. Jerusalem’s northern wall was always the weakest of its defenses because there were valleys on the other three sides of the city. It was at this northern wall that the Roman troops finally penetrated the defenses bringing the desolation that is still well revealed today by the archaeologist’s spade. (Dr. William H. Shea, Ph.D., Daniel, pp 166,167)

I would like to take it a bit further and add that the Jews caused the desolation of their own city and temple in their rejection of their Messiah. In other words, by rejecting the Messiah that had come, they incurred the floodgates of hell that overspread their city. In other words, the people of the prince destroyed their own city. “The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. In the utter destruction that befell them as a nation, and in all the woes that followed them in their dispersion, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown” (The Great Controversy, p.35). According to the prophet Hosea, we see similar terminology of self-destruction employed: “’O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;’ ‘for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity.’ (Hosea 13:9; 14:1). Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will.” (Ibid, p.35)

I shall now proceed to break down Daniel 9:24-27 according to the second interpretation:

This New Covenant of promise is seen in Daniel 9:27: “And he [Messiah] shall confirm [Hebrew: “make strong”] the covenant** with many* for one week”. The Antichrist is never known to make a covenant with ANYONE!

Proof of this lies in Matthew 26:28 “For this is my blood of the new covenant**, which is shed for many* for the remission of sins” [unfortunately, the Futurist interpretation of this verse (beginning around 1850 based off of the Roman Jesuit Francisco Ribera’s work of the 16th century) falsely interprets the “he” as the Antichrist. But even a casual look at Daniel 9:24-27 will prove that “the most Holy” (verse 24), “Messiah the Prince [nagiyd]” (verse 25), “Messiah” (verse 26a), “the prince [nagiyd]” (verse 26b) and the “he” (verse 27) are ALL referring to the same individual—Jesus Christ.

Let’s evaluate the full context:

Daniel 9:24-27 --

(24) “Seventy weeks [490 years, from 457 B.C. to 34 A.D.] are determined upon thy people [the Jews] and upon thy holy city [Jerusalem], to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy [When the Messiah would come to the Jewish nation, born as a babe, and be anointed by the Holy Ghost at His baptism in 27 A.D.].

(25) “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [nagiyd] shall be seven weeks [7 weeks/49 years], and threescore and two weeks [62 weeks/434 years]: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

(26) And after threescore and two weeks [after 62 weeks, which is “after the 69th week” or 483 years] shall Messiah be cut off [“killed”], but not for himself: and the people [Jewish people, not “army”] of the prince [nagiyd = Messiah the Prince] that shall come [Messiah is the one that “comes”, not the people] shall destroy the city and the sanctuary [Hosea 13:9 “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself”]; and the end thereof shall be with a flood [Roman Armies], and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. [said Jesus: Matthew 23:38 – “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate”]

(27) And he [Messiah] shall confirm [make strong] the covenant [same word as “testament”] with many [Matthew 26:28 – “This is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many”] for one week [starting 27 A.D. at Christ’s “anointing” in Acts 10:37,38 at his baptism to 34 A.D. when the gospel went forth to the Gentiles, Stephen was stoned, Saul became Paul, and Peter received the vision to preach to the Gentiles] : and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease [Christ’s sacrifice caused the meaning and value of animal sacrifices to cease in 31 A.D. at his death], and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate [Matthew 23:38 “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.”], even until the consummation [israel as a nation will be spiritually desolate even until Christ's Second Coming], and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. [Christ spoke when the house was desolate, and he predicted the desolations were determined upon the “desolate”—meaning, the Romans would desolate that which was already spiritually “desolate”, which went into effect 39 years later in 70 A.D. at the destruction of Jerusalem]

Notice the following phrase from verse 26:

“the people of the prince that shall come” – Futurists interpret this to mean that the “people will come”…or “the armies will come up to the city”. However, the grammatical structure is not referring to the “people” coming. It’s really saying “….the prince [messiah] that shall come”, not the people! There are two ways to interpret it, but in the light of the understanding presented, it HAS to be “the Messiah that shall come”….based on tons of scriptural references that speak about the coming of the Messiah. This goes marvelously with John 1:11 which says: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.”—“the people of the prince”. The “prince” in verse 26 and the “he” in verse 27 are both speaking of Jesus Christ, not Antichrist. To read antichrist into these passages forces us to stretch the texts far beyond their simplicity.

Gerhard F. Hasel once again insightfully states:

Quote:

Ninth, another serious problem concerns the assumption of an unprecedented covenant-making by antichrist. [A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel, (New York, 1911), p. 142; Walvoord, Daniel, pp. 232-236).] The OT (and the NT) “contain no hint of any such covenant at all, let alone some earlier one that he could confirm at this point in Dan. 9.” [Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p. 389.] The difficulty with this assumption is that it takes a lesser figure, namely “the prince that shall come” (vs. 26), as the antecedent of the “he” in verse 27, rather than the dominant figure, the “Messiah” (vs. 26). The word “prince” is a subordinate figure in verse 26. It is not even the subject of the clause. The subject of the clause is “the people.” Therefore, the fitting grammatical antecedent of the “he” (vs. 27) is the “Messiah” (vs. 26).

Tenth, the futurists interpreters transform the “prince” into “a future deputy of the devil” [Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p. 389.] and a “future enemy of the people of Israel.” [Ibid.] This interpretation overlooks the fact that the emphasis in verse 26 is not upon the “prince” but upon the “people of the prince.” Young points out, “This prince, therefore, must be one who rules over these people, . . . he must be their contemporary, alive when they are alive.” [Young, pp. 211-212] A prince living 1900 years later than the people is quite contrary to the text. L. Wood replies that the phrase “the one coming” means “from whom will come.” This makes the entire phrase read “the people from whom will come a prince.” [Wood, p. 258.] However, such a reading is not supported by the Hebrew text.

Eleventh, recent study of the poetry of 9:24-27 indicates a very intricate literary structure. [see J. Doukhan, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: An Exegetical Study,” AUSS 17 (1979): 1-22; W. H. Shea, “The prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27,” chap. 3, pp. 75-118 in this volume.] Such a structure binds the entire section together in literary patterns that do not permit the kind of chronological fragmentation demanded by the dispensational system. The literary arrangement supports the idea that the three titles—Messiah Prince (vs. 25), the Messiah (vs. 26a), and the Prince (vs. 26b)—refer to the same person who is cut off in the middle of the last week. [shea, “The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27,” pp. 92-94 in this volume.] (Gerhard F. Hasel, 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, pp. 24, 25)

[Truth Files]

Sorry LYS, but I don't buy the SDA rendering

Our views are miles [centuries] apart with regard to His nation of Israel and the Lord's intent to bring the 70th week still pending

I see a very different picture with regard to end time exegesis than you

There is a breach that can be found within the scope of all of all of the prophetic visions between the ending of the 69th week decreed .... and the beginning of the 70th still to come [i can show you where the breaks are if you like]

There is virtually nothing recorded of events on the earth between .... total silence .... many significant things have taken place on the earth in the breach, but you will not find one of them in the prophetic visions

He has purposely delayed His return to bring the coming 70th week with regard to Israel [Romans 11:25-36]

..... and we are most fortunate today that He has .... [Matthew 25:13; 2Peter 3:9]

If sooner .... we may have never existed with the opportunity for His salvation and eternal life

[miz3]

Quote:

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron: 27 “How long will this wicked community grumble against me? I have heard the complaints of these grumbling Israelites. 28 So tell them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the LORD, I will do to you the very things I heard you say: 29 In this desert your bodies will fall—every one of you twenty years old or more who was counted in the census and who has grumbled against me. 30 Not one of you will enter the land I swore with uplifted hand to make your home, except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun. 31 As for your children that you said would be taken as plunder, I will bring them in to enjoy the land you have rejected. 32 But you—your bodies will fall in this desert. 33 Your children will be shepherds here for forty years, suffering for your unfaithfulness, until the last of your bodies lies in the desert. 34 For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.’ 35 I, the LORD, have spoken, and I will surely do these things to this whole wicked community, which has banded together against me. They will meet their end in this desert; here they will die.”

36 So the men Moses had sent to explore the land, who returned and made the whole community grumble against him by spreading a bad report about it— 37 these men responsible for spreading the bad report about the land were struck down and died of a plague before the LORD. 38 Of the men who went to explore the land, only Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh survived."

Numbers 14:26-38.

This is a specific case in which the Lord punishes Israel for their rebellion. Anyone twenty years or older would not see the Land of Promise. The only exceptions would be Caleb and Joshua.

Then God said that those under 20 the children of the rebels would actually be taken into the Land of Promise!

In verses thirty-three and thirty-four God states that the rebels and their children will wonder in the desert for "forty years". The forty years was to mirror the forty days the spies explored the Land of Promise (verse thirty-four).

No where in this passage is there a blanket broad-based all encompassing PRINCIPLE IN REGARD THE THE YEAR/DAY!

In fact the passage is contextually strict that this year/day thing WAS FOR THIS INCIDENT ALONE!

Any comprehensive attempts to make this an all-encompassing principle are ADDING TO THE BIBLE THINGS THAT ARE NOT THERE!

Sorry NO YEAR/DAY PRINCIPLE HERE!

[ClubV12]

This is great, we are feasting on large morsels of truth today!

With the occasional black ball hurled our way, don't let it stain your garments. Eyes fixed on the prize.

Thanks Lysimachus

[miz3]

Thank you ClubV12!

[ClubV12]

eh eh, put your black balls down miz3 your making a mess of this.

[miz3]

Quote:

Now, son of man, take a clay tablet, put it in front of you and draw the city of Jerusalem on it. 2 Then lay siege to it: Erect siege works against it, build a ramp up to it, set up camps against it and put battering rams around it. 3 Then take an iron pan, place it as an iron wall between you and the city and turn your face toward it. It will be under siege, and you shall besiege it. This will be a sign to the house of Israel.

4 “Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel upon yourself.[a] You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side. 5 I have assigned you the same number of days as the years of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the house of Israel.

6 “After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year. 7 Turn your face toward the siege of Jerusalem and with bared arm prophesy against her. 8 I will tie you up with ropes so that you cannot turn from one side to the other until you have finished the days of your siege.

9 “Take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and spelt; put them in a storage jar and use them to make bread for yourself. You are to eat it during the 390 days you lie on your side. 10 Weigh out twenty shekels of food to eat each day and eat it at set times. 11 Also measure out a sixth of a hin[c] of water and drink it at set times. 12 Eat the food as you would a barley cake; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.” 13 The LORD said, “In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them.”

14 Then I said, “Not so, Sovereign LORD! I have never defiled myself. From my youth until now I have never eaten anything found dead or torn by wild animals. No unclean meat has ever entered my mouth.”

15 “Very well,” he said, “I will let you bake your bread over cow manure instead of human excrement.”

16 He then said to me: “Son of man, I will cut off the supply of food in Jerusalem. The people will eat rationed food in anxiety and drink rationed water in despair, 17 for food and water will be scarce. They will be appalled at the sight of each other and will waste away because of[d] their sin."

Ezekiel chapter four.

Here is the whole chapter of Ezekiel four!

This is a passage that is talking about the siege of Jerusalem! This is the only subject in the entire chapter! It is again a very narrow subject!

Verses four and five state that the year/day thing is for ONLY THE SINS OF ISRAEL!

It does not say the year/day thing is for anything else! It is for this singular event only and only at that particular time! It does not say this year/day thing is for any future time or any other situation. It does not say that you can apply this to some future prophecies either!

Daniel came years after this event!

Again, sorry NO YEAR/DAY PRINCIPLE HERE!

[miz3]

My friend hch,

If you want to establish a year/day Principle the only places I know that this is possible:

1. In the imagination of humans throughout history!

2. The writings of Ellen White!

I singled Ellen White as a separate item from number one because SDA believe that she is "inspired Scripture".

Otherwise Ellen White fits nicely into number one because like all other humans she is entitled to her opinion on the issue!

Thus, all this complex garbage and intricate math with varied calendars, and etc. is exactly that "GARBAGE"!

Such garbage does not come from the Lord. It is just confusion.

It bothers people to read Daniel and Revelation and find they don't understand it and this drives them crazy! So in the way of human nature they grab at any straw for plausible explanations. If no credible explanation shows up, then it is time to create a complex, contorted, convoluted, intricate, etc. mess in order to:

1. "Con" the common human!

2. Elevate the greatness of the human expositor and/or the Church!

3. Etc. Etc.

Unfortunately for these religious theorists the Bible and the Bible only refutes quite easily their con game! Jesus Christ was always doing this with the Jewish Leaders of His day! The common people loved it because finally they were able to hear God's Voice in terms simple enough a child could understand it!

This garbage on this thread is not God's Voice and no child could comprehend it! It does not have the approval of God because:

1. It is not Biblical!

2. It is too complex!

[ClubV12]

miz3 says,

"SDA believe that she is "inspired Scripture"."

Yes, SDA's believe that, therefore it's no surprise miz3 does not believe it.

[John317]

miz3 says,

"SDA believe that she is "inspired Scripture"."

Yes, SDA's believe that, therefore it's no surprise miz3 does not believe it.

We do believe Ellen White's messages to the church were inspired, but we don't claim that she is "Scripture." She wouldn't have wanted anyone to see her writings in that way.

[ClubV12]

Point well taken John, "inspired writings" or counsel would be more appropriate.

[John317]

....

This garbage on this thread is not God's Voice and no child could comprehend it! It does not have the approval of God because:

1. It is not Biblical!

2. It is too complex!

I have seen many children be able to understand it. In fact, I learned it and understood when I was in the second grade. My children learned it when they were young.

Anyone can learn that in prophecy a "day" is equal to a literal year. That really is not all that complex, and yes, it is most definitely biblical. We're sorry that you can't see it. You probably saw it at one time but have obviously learned to reject it.

When you examine the prophetic time periods in the books of Daniel and Revelation, it is self-evident that it is not talking about literal time. That is why it is put in various symbolic time periods. After all, the very first verse of Revelation tells us that Jesus sent and signified (that is, sign-i-fied) the messages by His angel to His servant John. The messages were put in symbolic language. This applies to the prophetic time also.

[John317]

Amen. :-)

[Guest]

I have seen many children be able to understand it. In fact, I learned it and understood when I was in the second grade. My children learned it when they were young.

Anyone can learn that in prophecy a "day" is equal to a literal year. That really is not all that complex, and yes, it is most definitely biblical. We're sorry that you can't see it. You probably saw it at one time but have obviously learned to reject it.

When you examine the prophetic time periods in the books of Daniel and Revelation, it is self-evident that it is not talking about literal time. That is why it is put in various symbolic time periods. After all, the very first verse of Revelation tells us that Jesus sent and signified (that is, sign-i-fied) the messages by His angel to His servant John. The messages were put in symbolic language. This applies to the prophetic time also.

Amen John, well put.

[Aliensanctuary]

I think I prefer the simpler explanation, day=day, rather than the much more complex day=year, which requires theologians and historians and calendar experts to explain.

End of Days, Last Days, Time of the End, End of the Age...why would these phrases not mean the time period preceding the destruction of Earth or some other world-changing event? To drag out the Last Days into the Last Several Thousand Years seems a bit of a stretch.

2 Peter 3:8

Quote:

But there is one thing, my dear friends, that you must never forget: that with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Now this is a more worthy proof of 1 day=1K years and 1K years=1 day than those offered for 1 day=1 year.

Ez 4:6,

Quote:

After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year.

Note here that 40 years are being compressed into 40 days, not 40 days being expanded into 40 years. This is saying, shrink one year into a day, that is, 1 year=1 day. The opposite, 1 day=1 year, especially "prophetic year" cannot be inferred from this verse.

There are, of course, events that are common to both historical and future events that tend to becloud the issue. Prophecy will be clear when the LORD sees fit to explain it to us.

[Guest]

(Continued...)

I will now quote from Bob Pickle who did a profound job at dealing with these calculations:

Quoting Bob Pickle on the 70 Weeks of Daniel 9:

If we start the 70 weeks in 457 BC, then the first 69 weeks unto "Messiah the Prince" would end in 27 AD. Adventists identify this as being the year of Christ's baptism. At that time He was anointed with the Holy Spirit descending upon Him in the form of a dove (Luke 3:1, 22; Acts 10:38). Since the Hebrew word for "Messiah" and the Greek word for "Christ" both mean "the anointed one," it seems most logical to identify the coming of the Messiah of Daniel 9:25 with Christ's anointing at His baptism.

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" (Dan. 9:27). When Christ died after a ministry of 3½ years (31 AD), the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom (Mat. 27:51). Thus Christ showed that the sacrifices were to cease, since the true sacrifice for sin had been offered.

This leaves but half a week left of the prophecy, 3½ years, stretching to 34 AD. In Acts 7 we find Stephen being stoned as the first Christian martyr. Immediately after this the gospel started going to non-Jews: Samaritans, the Ethiopian eunuch, and the Roman centurion Cornelius, along with his household (Acts 8:4-39; 10). Gabriel had told Daniel, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people" (Dan. 9:24). It therefore seems logical to end the 70 weeks with the stoning of Stephen, for at that point the gospel began to go to the Gentiles, not just Daniel's people, the Jews.

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" (Dan. 9:27). For one week (7 years) the gospel, the new "covenant," was "confirmed" with "many," the Jewish nation: 3½ years during the ministry of Christ, and 3½ years after His resurrection. After that, it went to the Gentiles.

The first 490 days of the 2300 thus ended in 34 AD. The remaining 1810 years can be added to 34 AD to arrive at 1844.

Before it can be said emphatically that 1844 is "an error," a better interpretation than the above must be found. None has been found to date.

The most popular alternative interpretation today is the following, which is more complex than what was above, which should tell you something: The first 69 weeks stretch from Artaxerxes' supposed twentieth year in 445 BC to about the death of Christ, and the 70th week is yet future.

Sir Robert Anderson proposed multiplying the 69 weeks, or 483 days, by 360 days to the year, and then dividing this product by 365.25 days per year. By this method he reduced the 483 years to just over 476 years, a total of 173,880 days. He then began the time period on March 14, 445 BC, what he supposed was the first day of the first Jewish month of Nisan that year. Then he ended it with April 6, 32 AD, what he supposed was Nisan 10, Palm Sunday, the week Christ was crucified. The 70th week of Daniel 9 Anderson put off into the future to a yet unknown time (The Coming Prince).

There are a number of serious problems with Anderson's theory:

In making this calculation, he mistakenly added three leap days too few, owing to his misunderstanding the differences between the Julian and the Gregorian calendars. 173,880 days should really end on Thursday, April 3, not Sunday, April 6.

Nisan 10 could not have been earlier than Wednesday, April 9, in 32 AD, and so could not have been April 6. This is because the sighting of the new moon which begins the new Jewish month could not have occurred as early as Anderson's theory demands.

Thus, Nisan 14 would have been on a Sunday or Monday in 32 AD, not on a Thursday as Anderson supposed. Anderson tied the last supper to Nisan 14, with Christ dying on the 15th. If Nisan 14 was on a Sunday or Monday, that would put Christ's death on a Monday or Tuesday in disagreement with the gospel accounts.

The Jews of Elephantine used accession-year reckoning for Artaxerxes, and the Jews of that [p. 27] time used a fall-to-fall calendar (Horn and Wood, The Chronology of Ezra 7, pp. 75-90; Neh. 1:1; 2:1). A king's accession year ran from the date of his enthronement until the next New Year's day. In a fall-to-fall calendar this would be Tishri 1, sometime in September or October. Not till after the accession year did the king's first year of reign begin. In contrast, non-accession year reckoning has no accession year, but begins the first year of reign with the king's enthronement. Each year of reign still ends on New Year's day.

Xerxes was murdered sometime in 465 BC. An Aramaic papyri, AP 6, written on January 2, 464 BC, is still dated in Artaxerxes's accession year, meaning that his first year would not begin until Tishri 464 (Ibid., pp. 98-115, 172-174). This makes Nisan in his twentieth year 444 BC, not 445. So Anderson's starting date was a year off.

Daniel 9 requires a "commandment to restore and build." While we have record of a decree from Artaxerxes' seventh year in Ezra 7, we have no record of a decree from his twentieth year. So how can we commence the 70 weeks with the twentieth year?

The reason Artaxerxes's twentieth year is chosen is because it is thought that then is when the Jews were commanded to build Jerusalem. However, Cyrus had commanded this long before (Is. 44:28; 45:13).

Putting the seventieth week of Daniel 9 into the future ignores the linguistic ties between chapters 8 and 9, and the resulting connection between the 2300 days and the 490 days.

The method of reducing the 69 weeks of 483 years to only 476 years ignores the Jewish seven-year cycle, since the 483 years no longer coincide with 483 actual years.

The Israelites were to work their fields for six years, and then let the land keep a sabbath for the seventh year (Lev. 25:2-7). It is easy to see an allusion to this practice in Daniel 9's "70 weeks," "7 weeks," "62 weeks," and "1 week." In fact, many scholars of various persuasions have recognized just such a connection. One's interpretation of the 70 weeks ought to therefore coincide with actual seven-year sabbatical cycles.

The Adventist way of reckoning them indeed does. The fall of 457 BC began the first year, and the fall of 34 AD ended the seventh year of a seven-year cycle (see "When Were the Sabbatical Years?" posted at http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers). Thus, when 31 AD is identified as the date for Christ's crucifixion, the middle of the last week of seven years, it truly is the precise middle of a seven-year cycle.

End Quote of Bob Pickle's Article (Source)

For a full and thorough breakdown of all the math, see Bob Pickle's more detailed articles below:

1. "An Examination of Anderson's Chronological Errors Regarding Daniel 9's First 69 Weeks." Dispensational eschatology, as portrayed on Left Behind, depends on an adequate explanation of the first 69 weeks. Anderson is often quoted, and yet his theories are contradicted by plain facts about calendars and history.

2. “Dr. Harold Hohner’s R...Weeks” - Acknowledges the four improvements over Anderson that Dr. Hoehner has provided. Examines the chronological difficulties still present in his calculations of Daniel 9's 70 weeks, and suggests an alternative interpretation unencumbered by such difficulties.

3. “When Were the Sabbatical Years?” - Re-examines Ben Zion Wacholder's evidence for his sabbatical dates, and concludes that the standard position was correct after all. Using Josephus, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, ancient inscriptions and documents, the Talmud, and Maimonides, when the sabbatical years were can be determined. And this all has a bearing on Daniel 9's 70 weeks.

Amen...and good work Lysimachus.

[ClubV12]

Indeed RLH. That was the best detailed work I've seen to date on the 2,300 year prophecy. I'll copy that (and more) and paste it to a document file for further study and referrence. Like the child John speaks of, I understand it, but I'm FAR short of being able to explain it in such an astute manner.