70 x 7

[miz3]

Primevile,

Daniel thought that God was extending the 70 year captivity to 2300 years. That's why Daniel fainted in horror. Imagine the pain he was going through.

So at the beginning in Chapter 9, he goes back to studying the 70 years. But the angel takes him away from that says... "uh uh uh... come back here... we're going to continue on those 2300 I was referring to".

Pure fantasy!

[Lysimachus]

Keep in mind also that in Daniel 9:2, Daniel "understood" the prophecy of the 70 year captivity.

"In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem." (Daniel 9:2)

But concerning the vision in Daniel 8, he did "not understand".

Therefore, when the angel Gabriel taps him on the shoulder to bring him back to the "vision", it can only be the vision that he did not understand in Daniel 8:

"Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision [chazon] at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation." (Daniel 9:21)

1. The first time the Angel Gabriel is mentioned is chapter 8.

2. Daniel already understood the vision of the 70 year captivity. He was not in vision in Daniel 9:1-21. He was only going "over" the 70 year captivity. What he did not understand was the "deliverance" part. The 70 weeks was an answer to that. But the angel was going to add a lot more than what he was expecting.

3. The same angel that he saw in the "beginning" in chapter 9 was the same angel Gabriel saw in chapter 8.

"And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision [mareh]." (Daniel 9:22,23)

It's extremely easy to see that Gabriel is bringing Daniel's attention back to the following:

"And the vision [mareh] of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision [chazon]; for it shall be for many days. And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision [mareh], but none understood it." (Daniel 8:26,27)

The vision of the evening and the morning that Daniel did not understand was as follows:

"And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred evening-mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." (Daniel 8:14)

It was the vision [mareh] of the "evening and the morning" that he did "not understand". Keep in mind that Daniel was primarily concerned about his people. so to faint over hearing 2300 years would have been a natural reaction, and a great enigma to him.

As to why God waited 10 years to bring him back to the 2300, we'll have to ask God when we get to heaven. He had His good reasons for making Daniel wait.

He was probably teaching Daniel patience and to exercise trust.

[Primevil60]

excellent! so God decided to un-seal the vision of Daniel 8? my next question. what textual evidence is there that the 70 weeks and 2300 days are started at the same time? In Daniel 8:13, the 2300 days are dealing specifically with the "daily", the rebellion that causes desolation, and the trampling of the sanctuary. Nowhere in there does it mention the rebuilding of the temple, which is where we begin the 2300 days & the 70 weeks, correct? Just reading it it seems as it would start in AD 70 when the 2nd temple was destroyed, not when the 2nd temple was built

[Lysimachus]

excellent! so God decided to un-seal the vision of Daniel 8?

[miz3]

Keep in mind also that in Daniel 9:2, Daniel "understood" the prophecy of the 70 year captivity.

"In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem." (Daniel 9:2)

But concerning the vision in Daniel 8, he did "not understand".

Therefore, when the angel Gabriel taps him on the shoulder to bring him back to the "vision", it can only be the vision that he did not understand in Daniel 8:

"Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision [chazon] at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation." (Daniel 9:21)

1. The first time the Angel Gabriel is mentioned is chapter 8.

2. Daniel already understood the vision of the 70 year captivity. He was not in vision in Daniel 9:1-21. He was only going "over" the 70 year captivity. What he did not understand was the "deliverance" part. The 70 weeks was an answer to that. But the angel was going to add a lot more than what he was expecting.

3. The same angel that he saw in the "beginning" in chapter 9 was the same angel Gabriel saw in chapter 8.

"And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision [mareh]." (Daniel 9:22,23)

It's extremely easy to see that Gabriel is bringing Daniel's attention back to the following:

"And the vision [mareh] of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision [chazon]; for it shall be for many days.

And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision [mareh], but none understood it." (Daniel 8:26,27)

The vision of the evening and the morning that Daniel did not understand was as follows:

"And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred evening-mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." (Daniel 8:14)

It was the vision [mareh] of the "evening and the morning" that he did "not understand". Keep in mind that Daniel was primarily concerned about his people. so to faint over hearing 2300 years would have been a natural reaction, and a great enigma to him.

As to why God waited 10 years to bring him back to the 2300, we'll have to ask God when we get to heaven. He had His good reasons for making Daniel wait.

He was probably teaching Daniel patience and to exercise trust.

The angel was sent to tell Daniel what was going to happen to the Jews after the return to Jerusalem when the seventy years were up! Daniel did not care anything about what would happen thousands of years in the future! Daniel was only interested in what would happen to "his people" which is why Daniel had been praying at the beginning of Daniel chapter nine!

Daniel 9:22-23 informs Daniel that because he, Daniel, is greatly beloved that God knew that Daniel was concerned about "his people", the JEWS! Thus, God was going to tell Daniel what was going to happen to the JEWS, "his people" in the future.

These passages are NOT talking about what is going to happen thousands of years into the future! Daniel would have no interest in such things!

Again, I would remind you that your bogus theory falls flat because there is no "YEAR/DAY JUNK" in the Bible!

So on two counts at least you are wrong!

1. No year/day junk!

2. The context does not refer to thousands of years hence, but rather refers to what will happen to the Jews after their return to Judah and the rebuilding of Jerusalem!

[Lysimachus]

Looks like I'm about to break my own rule of not dealing with you miz3, but I guess I changed my mind seeing you actually used a more reasonable argument for a change:

The angel was sent to tell Daniel what was going to happen to the Jews after the return to Jerusalem when the seventy years were up! Daniel did not care anything about what would happen thousands of years in the future! Daniel was only interested in what would happen to "his people" which is why Daniel had been praying at the beginning of Daniel chapter nine!

[jasd]

QR frame:

Rev 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment [was] as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

Rev 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

Unless one accepts that Revelation bespeaks orderliness – one commits to a hodgepodge of ideas – a jumblaya of oddments seeking to exposit Writ. Therefore, I submit that

because of the unlikelihood that man should live for 150 years after having been struck by the ‘locusts’, which arise from the pit – Revelation 9:5,6 speaks to the fact that all dates thereafter – would be literal dates; that is, they reflect days or months, as written. Moreover, should any extraction from the book of Daniel be proffered correlate to the events most singularly seen as 1260 day, 42 months, or some other expression in Revelation – it also, must be accepted as being literal – that one might not cancel the other.

Possible reason that Gd sealed the book of Daniel – that phantasmagoria might not overcome the serious expositor.

[Lysimachus]

QR frame:

Rev 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment [was] as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

Rev 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

Unless one accepts that Revelation bespeaks orderliness – one commits to a hodgepodge of ideas – a jumblaya of oddments seeking to exposit Writ. Therefore, I submit that

because of the unlikelihood that man should live for 150 years after having been struck by the ‘locusts’, which arise from the pit – Revelation 9:5,6 speaks to the fact that all dates thereafter – would be literal dates; that is, they reflect days or months, as written. Moreover, should any extraction from the book of Daniel be proffered correlate to the events most singularly seen as 1260 day, 42 months, or some other expression in Revelation – it also, must be accepted as being literal – that one might not cancel the other.

Possible reason that Gd sealed the book of Daniel – that phantasmagoria might not overcome the serious expositor.

First, off, let me say that I would appreciate if you would spell God with an "O". You appear to be infected by the "sacred namers" virus. Trust me, it's not going to hurt you.

Secondly, I read your post twice, and I'm still not following your logic.

Anybody?

[jasd]

Quote:

After bidding Daniel "understand the matter, and consider the vision," the very first words of the angel are: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy Holy City." The word here translated "determined" literally signifies "cut off."

A response to the above proposition...

Should Daniel have wished to endue “chathak” in “Seventy weeks are determined (#2852 chathak) upon thy people and upon thy holy city...” (Dan 9:24) with the meaning of “cut off” rather than its intrinsic meaning of...

#2852 chathak

1) to divide, determine [or, to cut: ed.jasd]

a) (Niphal) to be determined, be decreed, be settled, be marked out

then he certainly would have used karath as he did in Daniel 9:26 “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off (karath).

#3772 karath

1) to cut, cut off, cut down, cut off a body part, cut out, eliminate, kill, cut a covenant [...etc: ed.jasd]

Quote:

Seventy weeks, representing 490 years, are declared by the angel to be cut off,

The text reads, “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city...”, which in fact provides us with the fact that indeed!—the seventy weeks were/are divided into its component or constituent parts: “seven weeks”, “threescore and two weeks”, with yet ‘one week’ unfulfilled – with no relevance to the 2300-days prophecy.

Quote:

But from what were they cut off? [/ed.jasd]

I purport that “off” is a wishful eisegetic insertion/addition into the meaning of chathak - into the clear meaning of text.

Review the above: chathak intends that the Seventy weeks itself are divided into the component or constituent parts, and not that the Seventy weeks are “cut off” from anything else imagined...

[jasd]

>>I read your post twice, and I'm still not following your logic.<<

Easy. Josiah Litch notwithstanding, to continue to use the prophetic day/year from the point of Revelation 9:5,6 forward - strains one's credulity, as the prohetic 5 months therein would represent 150 years. Highly doubtful that man,

upon being struck by the 'locusts' from the pit - might continue living 150 years longer - becoming in effect - deathless...

Re Gd: you seem to have apprehended my intent well enough. That's suitable - and it leaves my idiosyncrasy intact

[Lysimachus]

Quote:

After bidding Daniel "understand the matter, and consider the vision," the very first words of the angel are: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy Holy City." The word here translated "determined" literally signifies "cut off."

A response to the above proposition...

Should Daniel have wished to endue “chathak” in “Seventy weeks are determined (#2852 chathak) upon thy people and upon thy holy city...” (Dan 9:24) with the meaning of “cut off” rather than its intrinsic meaning of...

#2852 chathak

1) to divide, determine [or, to cut: ed.jasd]

a) (Niphal) to be determined, be decreed, be settled, be marked out

then he certainly would have used karath as he did in Daniel 9:26 “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off (karath).

#3772 karath

1) to cut, cut off, cut down, cut off a body part, cut out, eliminate, kill, cut a covenant [...etc: ed.jasd]

These definitions are according to Strong's Dictionary, which disagree with the primary definitions of all the Jewish dictionaries.

The primary definition for "chathak" (2852) according to several Jewish dictionaries is to "cut off", and was a word used in reference to amputating limbs.

I can give you the volumes of sources if you really need me to.

Mr. Strong was not always accurate in his definitions.

And no, he would not have used "karath", because karath is not tied to dividing numbers. 70 weeks is tied to numbers.

[Lysimachus]

Quote:

Looking Unto Jesus - by Uriah Smith

Proof that the word "determined" signifies "cut off," and testimony from eminent writers who have acknowledged the connection between Daniel 8 and 9, are of sufficient importance to be set apart in a chapter by themselves. {1898 UrS, LUJ 172.1}

21 "DETERMINED" MEANS "CUT OFF"

FIRST WITNESS. - "'Seventy weeks are determined,' literally, 'cut off.' Hebraists all admit that the word determined, in our English version, does signify 'cutoff'. Not one has disputed it." (Josiah Litch, Midnight Cry, vol. 4. No. 25)

Second Witness. - "Seventy weeks have been cut off upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin-offerings, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy." Dan.9:24. -- Whiting's Translation

Third Witness. - Gesenius, the standard Hebrew lexicographer, thus defines this word in his Hebrew lexicon: "Nechtak: Properly, to cut off; tropically, to divide; and so to determine, to decree."

Fourth Witness. - The Chaldeo-Rabbinic Dictionary of Stockius, defines the word nechtak as follows: "Scidit, abscidit, conscidit, incidit, excidit - to cut, to cut away, to cut in pieces, to cut or engrave, to cut off."

Fifth Witness. - Mercerus, in his "Thesaurus," furnishes a specimen of Rabbinical usage in the phrase, chatikah shel basar, "a piece of flesh," or "a cut of flesh." He translates the word as it occurs in Dan.9:24, by "praecisa est," was cut off.

Sixth Witness. - Arias Montanus in a literal version of the text translates it "decisa est," was cut off; in the marginal reading, which is grammatically correct, the rendering is in the plural, "decisae sunt," were cut off.

Seventh Witness. - In the Latin version of Junius and Tremellius, nechtak (the passive of chathak) is rendered decisae sunt," were cut off.

Eighth Witness. - Theodotion's Greek version of Daniel (which is the version used in the Vatican copy of the Septuagint, as being the most faithful), renders it by sunetmethesan, were cut off; and the Venetian copy by tetmentai, have been cut.

Ninth Witness. - In the Vulgate the phrase is, "abbreviatae sunt," have been shortened. "Thus Chaldaic and Rabbinical authority, and that of the earliest versions, the Septuagint and Vulgate, give the single signification of cutting off to this verb."

Tenth Witness. - Hengstenberg, who enters into a critical examination of the text, says: "But the very use of the word, which does not elsewhere occur, while others, much more frequently used, were at hand if Daniel had wished to express the idea of determination, and of which he had elsewhere, and even in this portion, availed himself, seems to argue that the word stands from regard to its original meaning, and represents the seventy weeks in contrast with a determination of time (en platei) as a period cut off from subsequent duration, and accurately limited." (Christology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, p. 301. Washington, 1839.--RH, Feb 17, 1876)

This translation is further vindicated by Professor N.N. Whiting, from whom a quotation has already been given, in the following language: "As the period of 2300 days is first given, and verses 21 and 23, compared with Dan.8:16, show that the ninth chapter furnishes an explanation of the vision in which Gabriel appeared to Daniel, and of the 'matter' - (the commencement of the 2300 days) - the literal (or rather, to speak properly, the only) signification demanded by the subject-matter, is that of 'cut off'" (Midnight Cry, vol. iv, No. 17.)

No further nor better evidence could be required on this point. Beyond question the seventy weeks are cut off from some other period; and just as evidently that other period is the 2300 days of chapter 8. Should it be asked why our translators rendered the word "determined" when it so obviously signifies "cut off," a sufficient answer would be that they doubtless overlooked the connection between the eighth and ninth chapters; and considering it improper to speak of a period of time as cut off, when nothing was given from which it could be cut off, they gave the word its tropical instead of its literal meaning. {1898 Uriah Smith, Looking Unto Jesus, p. 175)

----------------------------------------------------------

Clifford Goldstein writes in his book "Graffiti in the Holy of Holies" pages 79-80:

Quote:

That the seventy weeks are cut off from, or taken out of, the 2,300 days is made even more apparent by the verb chatchak itself. This is a hapax legomenon, a technical term for a word that appears only once in the Bible. This means we have no other instances to compare with. Nevertheless, most Hebrew lexicons give one of the meanings, often the primary meaning, as "cut off." I own three Hebrew lexicons: Gesenius translates chatchak as "properly TO CUT, TO DIVIDE," with the idea of issuing a decree. Brown, Driver and Briggs defines it as "divide, determine." Holladay (an abridged lexicon) defines it as "decreed, ordained." Though not used anywhere else in the Bible, the verb appears in later Hebrew, and in a majority of cases it means "to cut off."

[jasd]

>>These definitions are according to Strong's Dictionary, which disagree with the primary definitions of all the Jewish dictionaries.<<

“All” the Jewish dictionaries?—uh, okay.

The 1832 edition of Gesenius gives the meaning of chathak as "determine," "to destine," and in Chaldee "to cut," "decide." But the 1846 edition renders it "to cut" "to divide," also "to decree," "to determine." The Student's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary of 1914 gives "to cut, to decide, to determine, to decree," and Rotherham in his Emphasized Bible stresses the meaning "divide." He then proceeds to show that the seventy-week period was divided into seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week. Still further usage is seen in Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, page 367; compare Koehler and Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, volume 1, page 343, giving schneiden ("to cut"), entscheiden ("to decide"). (sdanet.org)

Granted, there are those lexical sources that agree with the meaning of “cut off”; however, I don’t think it can be allowed – given the internal construction of the text itself.

Too bad that chathak was only used this once in Writ – else we might have comparisons.

>>The primary definition for "chathak" (2852) according to several Jewish dictionaries is to "cut off", and was a word used in reference to amputating limbs.<<

Umm, I think that would be...

#3772 karath

1) to cut, cut off, cut down, cut off a body part, cut out, eliminate, kill, cut a covenant

with the Qal stem. {a) to cut off a body part, behead}

>>I can give you the volumes of sources if you really need me to.<<

I take your word.

>>Mr. Strong was not always accurate in his definitions.<<

Eh..., what is he? Chopped liver?

Whereas, the KJV, or Authorized Version, was a collaboration of 47 scholars, The Strong’s Concordance was a collaboration of a hundred and is the most used Concordance/Lexicon, being also used in all of our Seminaries. Brown, Driver, Briggs, Young’s Analytical, Thayer’s, Vine’s, etc - corroborate Strong. The above agreement with Strong by

Koehler and Baumgartner is especially noteworthy – given their degree of respect in the lexical field.

>>And no, he would not have used "karath", because karath is not tied to dividing numbers. 70 weeks is tied to numbers.<<

I think it would with the niphal stem as used in Daniel 9:26

Proverbs 2:21-22; Amos 1:5 and other texts seem to suggest that all karath needs is a subject. However, what you suggest per the necessity of being tied to numbers is interesting.

[Lysimachus]

Enough dictionaries give the definition we're looking for JASD. Don't get "hung up" on my word "all".

[Lysimachus]

The 70 weeks are "divided" from the 2300. In other words, divided from a larger number. We have "decreed", which also means "portioned out". No use in continueing arguing about this.

Our Adventist pioneers knew a lot more than you. :)

[Lysimachus]

>>These definitions are according to Strong's Dictionary, which disagree with the primary definitions of all the Jewish dictionaries.<<

“All” the Jewish dictionaries?—uh, okay.

The 1832 edition of Gesenius gives the meaning of chathak as "determine," "to destine," and in Chaldee "to cut," "decide." But the 1846 edition renders it "to cut" "to divide," also "to decree," "to determine."

[John317]

The 70 weeks are "divided" from the 2300. In other words, divided from a larger number. We have "decreed", which also means "portioned out".

Certainly true. It's obvious that the angel came to instruct Daniel about the earlier vision, which had made Daniel sick.

Notice that Daniel 8: 26 says the vision of the 2300 days was to be sealed up because it refers to many days in the future. (NKJV) Then Daniel got very sick for days. Why? Isn't it obvious? The very next verses show Daniel studying the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the time when Israel was to return to Israel. Daniel was worried sick. He prays, and then the same angel who had been in the vision about the 2300 days appeared to Daniel and says he has come to give him understanding about "the vision."

What "vision"? Well, the vision Daniel had had earlier about the 2300 days. In fact, significantly, the same word for "vision" is used here (Daniel 9: 23) as is used in Daniel 8: 15, 16.

[jasd]

>>The 70 weeks are "divided" from the 2300. In other words, divided from a larger number. We have "decreed", which also means "portioned out".<<

Rotherham got it right...

“Rotherham in his Emphasized Bible stresses the meaning "divide." He then proceeds to show that the

seventy-week period was divided into

seven weeks,

sixty-two weeks,

and one week.”

>>No use in continueing arguing about this.<<

I was kinda thinking the time may have arrived when we’d finally realize that the ‘pioneers’ were wresting Daniel. Therefore,

one, must honestly, reject much of what they developed.

Anyway, I suppose it is only with great difficulty that one abandons his or her ‘pioneers’ – when in error.

>>Our Adventist pioneers knew a lot more than you. <<

If they could think faster than 10 words a minute – then you may be right; however, why is then, that they couldn’t agree upon the 10 ‘kingdoms’ of Nabuchadnezzar’s image dream?—or AD 1888, etc?

Or redacting the prophet’s dreams and ‘editing’ her books?

[jasd]

>>Sorry buddy, the 2300 days are years, and the Investigative Judgment began in 1844.

You're going to waste your breath here.<<

Probably, but didn’t that peculiarity emerge from a cornfield – by way of detour?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Granted, there are those lexical sources that agree with the meaning of “cut off”; however, I don’t think it can be allowed – given the internal construction of the text itself.

>>It is well allowed.<<

Not when strictly parsed.

>>The Lord illuminated the minds of numerous expositors prior to William Miller (at least 75), all over the globe, with few influencing one another, that the 70 weeks were portioned out of the 2300.<<

And, as I’ve noted: prima facie, WRESTED – making a mockery of Gd’s sealing of the book.

>>LeRoy Froom lays the DEATH KNELL against those who think this was an Adventist invention. Expositors the world-over understood this basic principle.<<

Froom?—wouldn’t that be like, ‘self-attestation’?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Too bad that chathak was only used this once in Writ – else we might have comparisons.

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

>>The primary definition for "chathak" (2852) according to several Jewish dictionaries is to "cut off", and was a word used in reference to amputating limbs.<<

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Umm, I think that would be...

#3772 karath

1) to cut, cut off, cut down, cut off a body part, cut out, eliminate, kill, cut a covenant

with the Qal stem. {a) to cut off a body part, behead}

>>Yes, and according to careful exegetical study, the Hebrew word "chathak" also was used to "amputate" according to the studies put together by Jacques Doukhan in his "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: An Exegetical Study," Andrews University Seminary Studies 17 (1979):1-22.<<

Has this guy any skin in the game?—you know anything that may cut with the bias?

>>Time to get with the times! The Adventist theologians are WAY ahead of ya buddy. <<

By rote!—indeed!

Quote:

Quote:jasd

>>Mr. Strong was not always accurate in his definitions.<<

Eh..., what is he? Chopped liver?

Whereas, the KJV, or Authorized Version, was a collaboration of 47 scholars, The Strong’s Concordance was a collaboration of a hundred and is the most used Concordance/Lexicon, being also used in all of our Seminaries. Brown, Driver, Briggs, Young’s Analytical, Thayer’s, Vine’s, etc - corroborate Strong. The above agreement with Strong by

Koehler and Baumgartner is especially noteworthy – given their degree of respect in the lexical field.

>>Even so, the Strong's definition does not deter from its meaning. "to divide", to "be marked out"...<<

My point, exactly - per Rotherham.

>>...is not much different from cutting off.<<

Indeed; however, it is monumental by definition.

>>In other words "out of these 2300 days of the mareh vision, I'm marking out 70 weeks of these for you Jews". <<

Eisegetical.

[miz3]

Wasted breath, Lysimachus!

I have already shown you and everybody that the "year/day junk" is INVALID!

Without your precious "year/day junk" your whole nest of tangled knots goes down the tube.

NO 1844, NO INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT, just SDA arrogance!

jasd is correct in that Hiram Edson tried to pluck your patooties out of the fire with switcharoo desperation (known in some circles as "hail mary").

Unfortunately it falls apart because it is based on fantasy junk, the year/day junk.

Like I said you can believe anything you want but honest brokers must finally come to the conclusion that the "year/day junk" does not exist as applicable to the Book of Daniel!

[John317]

>>The 70 weeks are "divided" from the 2300. In other words, divided from a larger number. We have "decreed", which also means "portioned out".<<

Rotherham got it right...

&#147;Rotherham in his Emphasized Bible stresses the meaning "divide." He then proceeds to show that the

seventy-week period was divided into

seven weeks,

sixty-two weeks,

and one week.&#148;

No one is disputing this. The 70 week period was divided into periods to mark off various fulfillments of the prophecy. But the point is that all of those periods are part of a whole. You can't take part of it and attach it way down at the end of history, over 2000 years from the end of the 69th week. There's no biblical, exegetical justification for doing that.

The first seven weeks (or 49 years) end with the completion of the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

The next sixty-two weeks end at the baptism of Christ, in 27 AD.

The last week ends at the stoning of Stephen when the gospel goes to the Gentiles, in 34 AD. Christ died in the middle of that last week, in 31 AD. His death did away with all of the sacrifices and the earthly sanctuary services.

NOTICE THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE SEVENTY WEEKS WERE NOT CUT OFF FROM THE 2300 DAYS OF DANIEL 8: 14.

The book of Daniel contains much internal evidence that those 490 years are cut off from the longer prophetic period.

See post #464313 for some of the evidence.

[John317]

Wasted breath, Lysimachus!

I have already shown you and everybody that the "year/day junk" is INVALID!

You mean like you've claimed to've shown everyone that none of us is a free moral agent? I think we get the picture. :-)

[Gerr]

Wasted breath, Lysimachus!

I have already shown you and everybody that the "year/day junk" is INVALID!.....

Unfortunately it falls apart because it is based on fantasy junk, the year/day junk.

Like I said you can believe anything you want but honest brokers must finally come to the conclusion that the "year/day junk" does not exist as applicable to the Book of Daniel!

One man's junk is another man's treasure! Like Nadab & Abihu, some people can't distinguish the treasure from the junk. The junk you speak of has been treasured by many EMINENT SCHOLARS for over a millenium.

[phkrause]

One man's junk is another man's treasure! Like Nadab & Abihu, some people can't distinguish the treasure from the junk. The junk you speak of has been treasured by many EMINENT SCHOLARS for over a millenium.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Wasted breath, Lysimachus!

I have already shown you and everybody that the "year/day junk" is INVALID!

You mean like you've claimed to've shown everyone that none of us is a free moral agent? I think we get the picture. :-)