Why 30's ad?

[Bernard Muller]

Hi spin,

This has been dealt with a number times. You are trying to demand accuracy when I don't see the writers are capable of the accuracy that you and the fundies want. We use history to understand what the writer intended, for the writer was interested in one period, which you agree with, that of the Hellenistic crisis (which started with the removal of Onias III). You have some fantasyland notion that the writers have to be accurate about the distant past.

I am lenient about inaccuracy. Please show your understanding of the 7, 62, 69 and 70 weeks, on how they relate to Jeshua coming in Jerusalem, the restoration/rebuilding of Jerusalem or/and its temple, Onias III's times and Antiochus IV's times. Don't be shy. And indicate how much inaccurate they are as compare to your time references, whatever they are.

However, we know exactly what the noun is, because we have the singular form in 9:27 which deals with the last of the seventy weeks, a fact that you are conspicuously avoiding. The word is שבוע. There is no doubt about this. There is no squirming to get around this.

I have not avoided it. I even acknowledged that, in the case of Da 9:27, "week" is to be understood as literal week. Check my previous posts.

Now in Dan 10:2,3 we find the same plural form of weeks as we find in the seventy weeks prophecy. The word here obviously means what you'd expect it to, ie "weeks". It clearly has no special meaning. There is no reason to think in Dan 9:24-7 that the writer is using the word in any fundamentally different manner—

Very interesting point. However, the author specified "weeks of days" in 10:2, most likely to avoid any confusion with "weeks" in 9:24-26, not meaning the same thing. And at 10:3, the author did not have to repeat "weeks of days" for the same time period, because, by that time, "weeks" would also be understood as "weeks of day".

In Da 9:26, I noted also that "sixty-two weeks" is preceded by "the", which obviously implies it is the same "sixty-two weeks" as in Da 9:25. During the sixty-two "weeks", you have Onias III's appearance, I have Jason's one. Then after the 62 "weeks" are completed, for you, Onias III is gone, for me Jason is gone.
There you have a problem with Onias III appearing and then gone in 7 days or less. For me, I do not, because that's one year or less.

And if the completed (after) 62 "weeks" point to either around 175-170 BC for Onias or 168 BC for Jason, the 62 "weeks" stand for a period of time of many years after the seven "weeks" of Da 9:25 (starting from Cyrus' decree).

Furthermore, that tells me these 62 "weeks" have nothing to do with Jerusalem restoration. Instead, the "62 weeks" are about the "departure" of a high priest, soon before Antiochus IV disastrous foray in Jerusalem.

And because of the urgency of the appeal in Da 9:24, and the most negative impact of Antiochus on the temple, it would be difficult to argue that the 70 "weeks" does not follow immediately these 69 "weeks".

I think your understanding of "weeks" in Da 24-26 is very flawed and does not make any mathematical sense.
But you know that already.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

Hi spin,

This has been dealt with a number times. You are trying to demand accuracy when I don't see the writers are capable of the accuracy that you and the fundies want. We use history to understand what the writer intended, for the writer was interested in one period, which you agree with, that of the Hellenistic crisis (which started with the removal of Onias III). You have some fantasyland notion that the writers have to be accurate about the distant past.

I am lenient about inaccuracy. Please show your understanding of the 7, 62, 69 and 70 weeks, on how they relate to Jeshua coming in Jerusalem, the restoration/rebuilding of Jerusalem or/and its temple, Onias III's times and Antiochus IV's times. Don't be shy. And indicate how much inaccurate they are as compare to your time references, whatever they are.

I don't know what you want. There is a rough period from the time of Cyrus to that of an anointed prince and the rebuilding of Jerusalem (the end of the 7 weeks is when Yeshua arrived and Jerusalem was rebuilt). That is indicated by the seven weeks of years. This is followed by a much longer period, indicated by 62 weeks of years until an anointed one is cut off (this anointed one was before the final week, ie at the start of Seleucid interference in Jewish affairs, when Onias III was removed by Andronicus and a Seleucid force was established in Jerusalem to support Menelaus). This is followed by one week of years, the latter half of which sacrifice was halted. I can repeat the basic notions as often as you like, but I still don't know what you want to know.

However, we know exactly what the noun is, because we have the singular form in 9:27 which deals with the last of the seventy weeks, a fact that you are conspicuously avoiding. The word is שבוע. There is no doubt about this. There is no squirming to get around this.

I have not avoided it. I even acknowledged that, in the case of Da 9:27, "week" is to be understood as literal week. Check my previous posts.

You've acknowledge that that week is a week, yet as I have said a number of times it is the last of the seventy weeks, a fact you have still ignored.

Now in Dan 10:2,3 we find the same plural form of weeks as we find in the seventy weeks prophecy. The word here obviously means what you'd expect it to, ie "weeks". It clearly has no special meaning. There is no reason to think in Dan 9:24-7 that the writer is using the word in any fundamentally different manner—

Very interesting point. However, the author specified "weeks of days" in 10:2, most likely to avoid any confusion with "weeks" in 9:24-26, not meaning the same thing. And at 10:3, the author did not have to repeat "weeks of days" for the same time period, because, by that time, "weeks" would also be understood as "weeks of day".

That is no help to you. You cannot then go from "weeks of days" to "sevens", but you can go from "weeks of days" to "weeks of years".

In Da 9:26, I noted also that "sixty-two weeks" is preceded by "the", which obviously implies it is the same "sixty-two weeks" as in Da 9:25. During the sixty-two "weeks", you have Onias III's appearance, I have Jason's one. Then after the 62 "weeks" are completed, for you, Onias III is gone, for me Jason is gone.
There you have a problem with Onias III appearing and then gone in 7 days or less. For me, I do not, because that's one year or less.

This is confusing. You are suddenly talking of days, which is uncalled for. The one week is the last of the seventy weeks. The seventy lasted from the arrival of Cyrus in Babylon to the time when the restoration of the temple could be meaningfully envisaged, while the one week lasted from 171 when Onias was killed to 164 when the temple was restored.

Why do you change this last week into seven days? Are the seventy weeks 490 days??? or just the last week seven days???

And if the completed (after) 62 "weeks" point to either around 175-170 BC for Onias or 168 BC for Jason, the 62 "weeks" stand for a period of time of many years after the seven "weeks" of Da 9:25 (starting from Cyrus' decree).

As I indicated many times in different forms

0 Cyrus' decree
--- seven weeks ---
7 Yeshua & the rebuilding
--- 62 weeks ---
69 the start of the Hellenistic crisis
--- last week ---
70 End of time

Onias was removed and eventually killed before the final week. (This is a reconsideration in that I am including his death before the final week. I also remove the chronological objection to Jason. He is just ideologically inappropriate for Daniel's anointed one.)

Furthermore, that tells me these 62 "weeks" have nothing to do with Jerusalem restoration. Instead, the "62 weeks" are about the "departure" of a high priest, soon before Antiochus IV disastrous foray in Jerusalem.

You've noted the grammatical connection between the 62 weeks in 9:25 & 26. They are the same (and you are yet to give a response for what happened before that 62 weeks, a simple matter for me). It is the period between the work of Yeshua and the beginning of the Hellenistic crisis and the Seleucid garrisoning of Jerusalem. I find it amusing that you declare that these 62 weeks "have nothing to do with Jerusalem restoration", when they are initiated by the restoration work and mark the duration of its survival.

And because of the urgency of the appeal in Da 9:24, and the most negative impact of Antiochus on the temple, it would be difficult to argue that the 70 "weeks" does not follow immediately these 69 "weeks".

Hang on, you've really thrown me here. 70 weeks following 69 weeks, ie 139 weeks??? Are we off to a weird idea from the LXX here?

We were talking of a seventy week period, made up of seven weeks plus sixty-two weeks plus one week.

0 Cyrus' decree
--- seven weeks ---
7 Yeshua & the rebuilding
--- 62 weeks ---
69 the start of the Hellenistic crisis
--- last week ---
70 End of time

You've been waltzing around about from days to weeks to sevens

I think your understanding of "weeks" in Da 24-26 is very flawed

You have shown an inability to understand my understanding.

and does not make any mathematical sense.
But you know that already.

And you're the one who is flying in the face of reality hoping that somehow Daniel has to be perfectly exact when few of the historical indications in the frame story make any sense.

You've failed to make sense of the grammar of 9:25 with its seven weeks and its sixty-two weeks, being gulled by apologetic literature and confessional translations into simply adding them together and ignoring the needs of the language. Christians can sweep that sort of thing under the carpet. You, however, are required to take a step back and be rational on the matter.

The fudge with the 70 sevens is not accurate and forces you to manipulate information to make it fit. I acknowledge that the predictive chronology is not accurate and don't have it as an albatross around my neck. Your only response is "but the chronology has to be right because I can manipulate it to be in the ballpark."

We were dealing with the grammatical issue of the need for an "and" before the "restored and built" clause. The parsing of 9:25 requires the use of the "ands" to tie it together. Note the use of square brackets ("[ ]") to mark the clauses linked ("in times of distress" is treated as a (verbless) clause):

"So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and build Jerusalem until anointed prince there will be seven weeks [and sixty-two weeks it will be restored and built, with street and ditch], [and in times of distress]."

This is not a difficult issue. The only problem is that this is different from one's expectation in English. The waw often translated as "and" has a much wider range of uses, one of which is to attach a clause to what came before it (often called the waw-consecutive).

So despite the apologist support you can rouse the interpretation which unites the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks is grammatically incorrect. The relevant clause needs to be attached with a waw and your interpretation robs it of its waw.

I guess I should reduce my responses to you because you hardly respond to anything, so I'm wasting thought effort. You know what your conclusion is.

[spin]

Here is 1 Chr 3:4, which has a grammatical structure similar to Dan 9:25 with two durations between two clauses:

ששה נולד־ל׃ו ב׃חברון
six were born to him in Hebron

ו׃ימלך־שם שבע שנים ו׃ששה חדשים
and he reigned there seven years and six months

ו׃שלשים ו׃שלוש שנה מלך ב׃ירושלם
and thirty-three years he reigned in Jerusalem

ששה נולד־ל׃ו ב׃חברון ו׃ימלך־שם [שבע שנים ו׃ששה חדשים ו׃שלשים ו׃שלוש שנה] מלך ב׃ירושלם

He reigned in Hebron [seven years and six months and thirty-three years] he reigned in Jerusalem.

You have decided in 9:27 that you have to add the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks. What do you think about 1 Chr 3:4? Will you as wrongly add the two durations together? Or will you admit that one duration belongs to the previous clause and one duration to the later clause? You might appreciate that there is no way for the later clause to be attached without the waw which precedes 33 years. The 33 years, like the sixty-two weeks belongs to the later clause.

[Bernard Muller]

Hi spin,

I don't know what you want. There is a rough period from the time of Cyrus to that of an anointed prince and the rebuilding of Jerusalem (the end of the 7 weeks is when Yeshua arrived and Jerusalem was rebuilt). That is indicated by the seven weeks of years. This is followed by a much longer period, indicated by 62 weeks of years until an anointed one is cut off (this anointed one was before the final week, ie at the start of Seleucid interference in Jewish affairs, when Onias III was removed by Andronicus and a Seleucid force was established in Jerusalem to support Menelaus). This is followed by one week of years, the latter half of which sacrifice was halted. I can repeat the basic notions as often as you like, but I still don't know what you want to know.

Now you are talking about weeks of years. No more sevens, no more plain weeks. But I do not know where "of years " is written in the Hebrew for each occurrences of "weeks" in Da 9:24-26! It does not show in the Hebrew. But when the same word is written next to mean 7 days (Da 10:2), then the author specified "weeks of days".
Also 49 years after Cyrus' decree bring us to 539-538 - 49 = 490-489. And how do we know biblically discreet Jeshua was still here & alive then? How "Daniel" could have known that?
Then 62 weeks of years later is 490-489 - 434 = 56-55 BC. But Onias III had been cut off about 120 to 115 years before!
That's what you call inaccuracy. I call that a mismatch.

You've acknowledge that that week is a week, yet as I have said a number of times it is the last of the seventy weeks, a fact you have still ignored.

On my webpage, I had (still have), the two "week/seven" as meaning a particular year. But checking further, the Hebrew shows "שבוע" which cannot mean "seven", but only "week" instead.
I already explained it makes sense that Antiochus, when in Jerusalem, had some of his men promulgate the new covenant for one week only, and in the middle of that week, interrupted the Jewish sacrifices.
One year makes less sense, more so because Antiochus stayed a lot less than one year in Jerusalem .
Furthermore, that change of covenant happened after the year of the 69 "weeks/sevens", which means it was already during the year of the 70 "weeks/sevens". So I do not need an extra year to get to the year of the 70 "weeks/sevens".
The fleeing of Jason, the second foray of Antiochus IV in Jerusalem and the massacres of Jews could have happened within one year time (with months to spare), during the year of the 70 "weeks/sevens".

That is no help to you. You cannot then go from "weeks of days" to "sevens", but you can go from "weeks of days" to "weeks of years".

I do not see why you can go from "weeks of days" to "weeks of years".
May I tell you that "weeks of years" is very confessional: Apologists assert the so-called decree of Artaxerxes I in his 20th year is the One, and then with fudging the years, arrived, with the 69-70 weeks of years, you guessed it, to around 30-31 AD.
The one who started that was Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240).

The "weeks/sevens" in Da 9:24-26 is, in Hebrew, שבעים
In the old testament, outside "Daniel", there are nine occurrences of "weeks".
In Deu 16:9b, 10 & 16, 2 Ch 8:13 & Jer 5:24, "weeks" is spelled שבעות.
In Deu 16:9a, Num 28:26 & Ex 34:22, "weeks" is spelled שבעת.
This is not as it is in Da 9:24-26: שבעים

However in Lev 12:5, we have also שבעים but all the translations I read indicate that means "2 weeks", even in the Hebrew for "two" is not appearing in the text. But two real weeks in Da 9:24-26 for its שבעים does not make any sense.

Essentially, the word in Da 9:24-26 is oddball and can certainly be understood as a plural of seven (שבע in Hebrew).
As in the "confessional" NIV:
“Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.
“Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.
After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death [do not agree here: should be "cut off"] and will have nothing. ..."

This is confusing. You are suddenly talking of days, which is uncalled for. The one week is the last of the seventy weeks. The seventy lasted from the arrival of Cyrus in Babylon to the time when the restoration of the temple could be meaningfully envisaged, while the one week lasted from 171 when Onias was killed to 164 when the temple was restored.

First, you had "sevens", then it was "weeks" without "of year". Yes, I had reasons to be confused. For the rest, it simply does not add up, as I explained already. The 70 weeks of years get you to 539-538 - 490 = 49-48 BC, which is way past when "the restoration of the temple could be meaningfully envisaged".

0 Cyrus' decree
--- seven weeks ---
7 Yeshua

Explained already. Now you are surmising that "Daniel" knew a lot about that Jeshua and when he appeared on the scene in Jerusalem (or was anointed).

the rebuilding
--- 62 weeks ---

The rebuilding did not take 434 years, a lot less than that.

I also remove the chronological objection to Jason.

We are making progress.

Hang on, you've really thrown me here. 70 weeks following 69 weeks, ie 139 weeks??? Are we off to a weird idea from the LXX here?

Obviously that not what I meant. The year specified by 69 "weeks/sevens" is followed by the year specified by 70 "weeks/sevens".
Gee, a quick reading of my webpage and me saying that ' Daniel' was completed in 167-164 BC should have prevented you to think that.

You've been waltzing around about from days to weeks to sevens

I always conformed to my understanding of the "sevens" except that the evidence made me change my mind on the two "week" of Da 9:27. If I had been waltzing, is because I have been following you on your hypothesis of weeks meaning 7 days. Now, it's weeks meaning 7 years duration.

So despite the apologist support you can rouse the interpretation which unites the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks is grammatically incorrect. The relevant clause needs to be attached with a waw and your interpretation robs it of its waw.

Even if the "anointed, the prince" is not the same than the "anointed one", you still have the "anointed one" being "cut off", or "killed" if you prefer, at around 49-48 BC, which is closer to Jesus' times than Jason's time. A change the decree to the (alleged) one of Artaxerxes' 20th year, finding some pretext in order to fudge the years in order to get a small decrease in their number, et voila, it is 30-31 AD. So you are the one favoring the apologists.
With my "sevens", even changing the decree, you would have to fudge the years a lot more, and that will not be as easy as for your "weeks of years".

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

Hi spin,

I don't know what you want. There is a rough period from the time of Cyrus to that of an anointed prince and the rebuilding of Jerusalem (the end of the 7 weeks is when Yeshua arrived and Jerusalem was rebuilt). That is indicated by the seven weeks of years. This is followed by a much longer period, indicated by 62 weeks of years until an anointed one is cut off (this anointed one was before the final week, ie at the start of Seleucid interference in Jewish affairs, when Onias III was removed by Andronicus and a Seleucid force was established in Jerusalem to support Menelaus). This is followed by one week of years, the latter half of which sacrifice was halted. I can repeat the basic notions as often as you like, but I still don't know what you want to know.

Now you are talking about weeks of years.

Bernard, I have always been talking about weeks of years. How else can you get from Cyrus to Antiochus IV?

No more sevens, no more plain weeks.

That really explains why you've been talking past me. I think we have made some headway.

But I do not know where "of years " is written in the Hebrew for each occurrences of "weeks" in Da 9:24-26! It does not show in the Hebrew. But when the same word is written next to mean 7 days (Da 10:2), then the author specified "weeks of days".

Where were you when I talked about 3½ years in Dan 9 in this post? That's half a week of years.

Also 49 years after Cyrus' decree bring us to 539-538 - 49 = 490-489. And how do we know biblically discreet Jeshua was still here & alive then? How "Daniel" could have known that?
Then 62 weeks of years later is 490-489 - 434 = 56-55 BC. But Onias III had been cut off about 120 to 115 years before!
That's what you call inaccuracy. I call that a mismatch.

You don't mind if I question your memory. I tell you that these dates are not accurate and you keep coming back with the fact that what I say doesn't fit the accuracy of the dates.

Incidentally, I've pointed out that your fudge is not accurate, given that you are for some reason an accuracy advocate.

You've acknowledge that that week is a week, yet as I have said a number of times it is the last of the seventy weeks, a fact you have still ignored.

On my webpage, I had (still have), the two "week/seven" as meaning a particular year. But checking further, the Hebrew shows "שבוע" which cannot mean "seven", but only "week" instead.

Is that progress?

I already explained it makes sense that Antiochus, when in Jerusalem, had some of his men promulgate the new covenant for one week only, and in the middle of that week, interrupted the Jewish sacrifices.
One year makes less sense, more so because Antiochus stayed a lot less than one year in Jerusalem .
Furthermore, that change of covenant happened after the year of the 69 "weeks/sevens", which means it was already during the year of the 70 "weeks/sevens". So I do not need an extra year to get to the year of the 70 "weeks/sevens".
The fleeing of Jason, the second foray of Antiochus IV in Jerusalem and the massacres of Jews could have happened within one year time (with months to spare), during the year of the 70 "weeks/sevens".

The last week is seven years, Bernard. For half of it things may have been tense, but it was only in the last 3½ years that we had the loss of sacrifice, from 168/7.

That is no help to you. You cannot then go from "weeks of days" to "sevens", but you can go from "weeks of days" to "weeks of years".

I do not see why you can go from "weeks of days" to "weeks of years".
May I tell you that "weeks of years" is very confessional: Apologists assert the so-called decree of Artaxerxes I in his 20th year is the One, and then with fudging the years, arrived, with the 69-70 weeks of years, you guessed it, to around 30-31 AD.
The one who started that was Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240).

You can tell me anything your little heart desires, Bernard.

I work on the notion that the writer was trying to communicate something with his insight into Jeremiah's 70 years from the devastation of Jerusalem. It involves starting with the decree to rebuild the city at the time of Cyrus and ending with the foreseen death of Antiochus. This is a period of several hundred years. The Dan 9 prophecy is expanding on the 70 years, not contracting it.

The "weeks/sevens" in Da 9:24-26 is, in Hebrew, שבעים

Can you show me a single undisputed text that has the number seven in the plural? No, you can't. This is not philology, it's apologetics.

In the old testament, outside "Daniel", there are nine occurrences of "weeks".
In Deu 16:9b, 10 & 16, 2 Ch 8:13 & Jer 5:24, "weeks" is spelled שבעות.
In Deu 16:9a, Num 28:26 & Ex 34:22, "weeks" is spelled שבעת.
This is not as it is in Da 9:24-26: שבעים

However in Lev 12:5, we have also שבעים but all the translations I read indicate that means "2 weeks", even in the Hebrew for "two" is not appearing in the text. But two real weeks in Da 9:24-26 for its שבעים does not make any sense.

Essentially, the word in Da 9:24-26 is oddball and can certainly be understood as a plural of seven (שבע in Hebrew).

The use of the word שבעים in 10:2,3 helps, as it qualifies with "days" so that you know that the scale has changed.

As in the "confessional" NIV:
“Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.
“Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.
After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death [do not agree here: should be "cut off"] and will have nothing. ..."

This is confusing. You are suddenly talking of days, which is uncalled for. The one week is the last of the seventy weeks. The seventy lasted from the arrival of Cyrus in Babylon to the time when the restoration of the temple could be meaningfully envisaged, while the one week lasted from 171 when Onias was killed to 164 when the temple was restored.

First, you had "sevens", then it was "weeks" without "of year". Yes, I had reasons to be confused. For the rest, it simply does not add up, as I explained already. The 70 weeks of years get you to 539-538 - 490 = 49-48 BC, which is way past when "the restoration of the temple could be meaningfully envisaged".

I'm pretty much shocked that you have all these weird ideas crossing your mind when dealing with a period from the time of Cyrus to Antiochus IV. We already know that we are dealing with Antiochus because the other three visions deal with the same issues

0 Cyrus' decree
--- seven weeks ---
7 Yeshua

Explained already. Now you are surmising that "Daniel" knew a lot about that Jeshua and when he appeared on the scene in Jerusalem (or was anointed).

Ben Sira 49:12 shows that Yeshua was common knowledge. He's mentioned in Haggai and Zechariah as well as Nehemiah. There's a fair bit of knowledge on Yeshua to be had, just not chronological accuracy.

the rebuilding
--- 62 weeks ---

The rebuilding did not take 434 years, a lot less than that.

You're going to drone on trying to force accuracy into the text when you already know that it isn't appropriate, given the lack of accuracy elsewhere in the text. I guess I'll have to keep telling you because you seem to forget at every opportunity.

I also remove the chronological objection to Jason.

We are making progress.

Hang on, you've really thrown me here. 70 weeks following 69 weeks, ie 139 weeks??? Are we off to a weird idea from the LXX here?

Obviously that not what I meant. The year specified by 69 "weeks/sevens" is followed by the year specified by 70 "weeks/sevens".
Gee, a quick reading of my webpage and me saying that ' Daniel' was completed in 167-164 BC should have prevented you to think that.

You can stick to your web page, Bernard, or discuss things here.

You've been waltzing around about from days to weeks to sevens

I always conformed to my understanding of the "sevens" except that the evidence made me change my mind on the two "week" of Da 9:27. If I had been waltzing, is because I have been following you on your hypothesis of weeks meaning 7 days. Now, it's weeks meaning 7 years duration.

You haven't been making much sense with your statements about sevens and weeks and days.

So despite the apologist support you can rouse the interpretation which unites the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks is grammatically incorrect. The relevant clause needs to be attached with a waw and your interpretation robs it of its waw.

Even if the "anointed, the prince" is not the same than the "anointed one", you still have the "anointed one" being "cut off", or "killed" if you prefer, at around 49-48 BC, which is closer to Jesus' times than Jason's time.

Gosh, you're not trying to belt the accuracy crap yet again, are you Bernard. I guess you must believe that there was a Darius the Mede and that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar and that there were only four Persian kings. You stick with your funny accuracy, there Bernard, if it helps you feel better.

A change the decree to the (alleged) one of Artaxerxes' 20th year, finding some pretext in order to fudge the years in order to get a small decrease in their number, et voila, it is 30-31 AD. So you are the one favoring the apologists.

Fuck off, Bernard and don't be so silly. You know that you are making things up without any understanding of my stated views. The nutters have hit on the wrong Artaxerxes from Ezra.

With my "sevens", even changing the decree, you would have to fudge the years a lot more, and that will not be as easy as for your "weeks of years".

The sevens are your albatross, Bernard, not mine. Faux accuracy is also your burden, not mine.

You know that you cannot justify your interpretation of weeks in order to fudge the chronology. You know that pretending to deal with the Hebrew is no substitute for knowing something about it, therefore one day you may still learn that you can't get away with ignoring the grammar involved in your interpretation of 9:25. I've also shown that your restructuring of the verse isn't reflective of Hebrew, despite the fact that the apologists do it without thought. You are simply wrong to trust the break up of 9:25 so that you add the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks. It is unprecedented and simply made up. It comes from a long history of confessional reading of the text. You have no response to the grammatical problem. It's time you gave up the nonsense of adding the two durations.

The writer of 10:2,3 lets you know that he has a meaning of שבעים related to that in 9:24-27, but clarifies with an added ימים, which indicates that the weeks in 9:24-27 are not of days. He provides historical knowledge that makes clear that the individual week items are years.

The 3½ years which I have consistently indicated as 1239 days is the prediction from the stoppage of sacrifice to the end of time/restoration of the temple. That 1239 days is only 96 days short of the final guesstimate in 12:12. In 9:27b we are in that last 3½ years, looking at the hope of retaking Jerusalem. It is unavoidable once we know the context from the other three visions, the Maccabees and Josephus to understand that we are dealing with Jerusalem under the crisis caused by Antiochus. Whatever the numbers are in 9:25-27, the events are clear (well, for you, all but the fact that Yeshua is there in v25). We have the historical parameters and a better knowledge of the real chronological measures involved than the writers of the Hellenistic crisis. The last week is relatively accurate, as one might expect from someone living through the period. The other information is there for window dressing. The text is aimed at edifying the listeners of the period to persevere because the end is in sight. Your hopes for accuracy outside that context is over-hopeful.

1. You seem still to be crapping on about sevens, when it is just plain wrong, as the singular form שבוע in 9:27 demonstrates.
2. You still hope your fudge with these sevens is somehow accurate when you are out by two years or so.
3. You don't understand Dan 9:25 because you have no familiarity with Hebrew at all. You rely on help that is purely apologetic and your choice of bibles is for some reason confessional. You need to use scholarly sources.

[beowulf]

The Book of Daniel
Bernard, why it matters to you what that worthless political pamphlet , Book of Daniel, is supposed to say?
The book of Daniel was deliberately written in an obscure style to obey divine orders.


"Artscroll English Tanach , Stone Edition.
12.4 as for you, Daniel, obscure the matters and seal the book, until the time of the End, let many muse and let knowledge increase (*)

(*) Write the prophecies in an obscure manner so that the exact meaning remains unclear. People will have to investigate thoroughly and search hard to discern the true intent of these prophecies."

[DCHindley]

There is a reason why pseudepigraphical books (books written in the name of some legendary person of long past times) use cryptic language. They are trying to "explain" how the work (or sources supposedly collected) had been so long unknown: the significance of the cryptic language was only apparent in the times when the book was first circulated (that is, when it was actually written).

Other pseudepigrapha was "found" in walls by workmen (including Deuteronomy!), inscribed on stone monuments that were somehow covered by sand or water for ages, were revealed to sages but commanded to remain "hidden" until the time of the prophesies fulfillment, etc, etc.

DCH

[Bernard Muller]

Hi spin,

ou don't mind if I question your memory. I tell you that these dates are not accurate and you keep coming back with the fact that what I say doesn't fit the accuracy of the dates

It is beyond inaccurate, it is wrong.

The last week is seven years, Bernard. For half of it things may have been tense, but it was only in the last 3½ years that we had the loss of sacrifice, from 168/7.

But it happens that "week" in Da 9:27 is spelled in the Hebrew exactly as it should. I go by that.

I work on the notion that the writer was trying to communicate something with his insight into Jeremiah's 70 years from the devastation of Jerusalem. It involves starting with the decree to rebuild the city at the time of Cyrus and ending with the foreseen death of Antiochus. This is a period of several hundred years. The Dan 9 prophecy is expanding on the 70 years, not contracting it.

"Daniel" modified the end time in the "70 years" prophecy of Jeremiah and replaced the (wrongly) predicted devastation of Babylon by the end of the desolation of Jerusalem (in 516 BC, when the temple was rebuilt, which correspond with "in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius [the great]" Ezra 6:15). The start time of the prophecy is the devastation of Jerusalem (in 586 BC).
But 'Jeremiah' has "years", not a word which can be considered a plural of "seven".

Can you show me a single undisputed text that has the number seven in the plural? No, you can't. This is not philology, it's apologetics.

No, the word in question is special to 'Daniel' and a clue for not considering it as a plural for "week".

The use of the word שבעים in 10:2,3 helps, as it qualifies with "days" so that you know that the scale has changed.

Yes, it qualifies with "days" but that does not mean that שבעים in Da 9:24-26 means "weeks of years". If so, Daniel" would have wrote it. He did not. Anyway, as we know it, the interpretation as "weeks of years" makes the timing grossly inaccurate (wrong) by a big margin.

Ben Sira 49:12 shows that Yeshua was common knowledge. He's mentioned in Haggai and Zechariah as well as Nehemiah. There's a fair bit of knowledge on Yeshua to be had, just not chronological accuracy.

But despite all that, no indication about Jeshua appearing in Jerusalem or being anointed 49 years after Cyrus' decree.

The rebuilding did not take 434 years, a lot less than that.

You're going to drone on trying to force accuracy into the text when you already know that it isn't appropriate, given the lack of accuracy elsewhere in the text. I guess I'll have to keep telling you because you seem to forget at every opportunity.

It does not matter if the rebuilding is considered finished in Darius the Great's 6th year (516 BC), or some years after Artaxerxes' 20th year, or in Darius II's 6th year, or some years after Artaxerxes II's 20th year (around 380 BC), the later being the best case for you, but only about 158 years (from Cyrus' decree) or 109 years (from the alleged year of Jeshua's arrival in Jerusalem or his anointment): there is a huge difference between 434 years and 158/109 years, way beyond what might be called inaccuracy.

The 3½ years which I have consistently indicated as 1239 days is the prediction from the stoppage of sacrifice to the end of time/restoration of the temple. That 1239 days is only 96 days short of the final guesstimate in 12:12. In 9:27b we are in that last 3½ years, looking at the hope of retaking Jerusalem.

These days start "from the time that the continual burnt offering is taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate is set up". But the text does not say these days end at the restoration of the temple in 164 BC. End of time? You can make an argument on that, but that's not the same as the rededication of the temple.
Furthermore 1239 days is not the same as 1335 days and both durations cannot refer to the same event. I took that in account in my explanations on my webpage http://historical-jesus.info/danielx.html.
Both durations refer to events affecting the temple, but happening after the rededication. There are "updates" to keep pace with events happening up to the death of Antiochus IV.

1. You seem still to be crapping on about sevens, when it is just plain wrong, as the singular form שבוע in 9:27 demonstrates.

The singular form in 9:27 does not correspond to the plural form in 9:24-26, in 2 different ways: one letter goes missing from שבוע to שבע and the plural indication is irregular.

2. You still hope your fudge with these sevens is somehow accurate when you are out by two years or so.

I do not know what you are talking about. The year specified by the 70 sevens in my scheme shows 167 BC, the year of Jason being cut off, Antiochus' foray in Jerusalem and Jews being massacred in large number. No 2 years differences here.

3. You don't understand Dan 9:25 because you have no familiarity with Hebrew at all. You rely on help that is purely apologetic and your choice of bibles is for some reason confessional. You need to use scholarly sources.

My understanding of Da 9:25 is confirmed by the "sevens" bringing me exactly at the right year.
If it fits, don't dismiss.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

Hi spin,

ou don't mind if I question your memory. I tell you that these dates are not accurate and you keep coming back with the fact that what I say doesn't fit the accuracy of the dates

It is beyond inaccurate, it is wrong.

Stretch terms. It won't change the fact that you are involved not in research but eisegesis.

The last week is seven years, Bernard. For half of it things may have been tense, but it was only in the last 3½ years that we had the loss of sacrifice, from 168/7.

But it happens that "week" in Da 9:27 is spelled in the Hebrew exactly as it should. I go by that.

FFS, Bernard, that one week is the seventieth. Will you never get that into your little head?? You have certainly built a hedge around your sevens nonsense. It's so you can ignore reality.

I work on the notion that the writer was trying to communicate something with his insight into Jeremiah's 70 years from the devastation of Jerusalem. It involves starting with the decree to rebuild the city at the time of Cyrus and ending with the foreseen death of Antiochus. This is a period of several hundred years. The Dan 9 prophecy is expanding on the 70 years, not contracting it.

"Daniel" modified the end time in the "70 years" prophecy of Jeremiah and replaced the (wrongly) predicted devastation of Babylon by the end of the desolation of Jerusalem (in 516 BC, when the temple was rebuilt, which correspond with "in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius [the great]" Ezra 6:15). The start time of the prophecy is the devastation of Jerusalem (in 586 BC).
But 'Jeremiah' has "years", not a word which can be considered a plural of "seven".

That is supposed to be meaningful, but it is just obtuseness. There is no plural of seven. You've been asked to show one example elsewhere in the Hebrew bible, yet you cannot. You've been asked to acknowledge that the seventieth week is exactly the word for "week". Continuing with the sevens is understandable, now that you are committed to it, but it is not rational.

Can you show me a single undisputed text that has the number seven in the plural? No, you can't. This is not philology, it's apologetics.

No, the word in question is special to 'Daniel' and a clue for not considering it as a plural for "week".

You fail to acknowledge the singular, as seen in Dan 9:27, is in fact the word for week. Dan 9:27 contains a reference to the last of the seventy weeks. Your theory is a total non-starter, as it cannot explain the text.

Daniel 9
24“Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. 25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with street and trench, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

Get it? 70 = 7 + 62 + 1. The last week is the same item as one of the seven or sixty-two weeks.

The text cannot help you more clearly (other than to change it adhere to your conclusions).

The use of the word שבעים in 10:2,3 helps, as it qualifies with "days" so that you know that the scale has changed.

Yes, it qualifies with "days" but that does not mean that שבעים in Da 9:24-26 means "weeks of years". If so, Daniel" would have wrote it. He did not.

Rubbish. You are projecting your desires to resuscitate the silly sevens.

Anyway, as we know it, the interpretation as "weeks of years" makes the timing grossly inaccurate (wrong) by a big margin.

And as we know the writers are extremely inaccurate about earlier times, so inaccuracy is only to be expected about earlier times. You just hope against reality that the seventy weeks is accurate.

Ben Sira 49:12 shows that Yeshua was common knowledge. He's mentioned in Haggai and Zechariah as well as Nehemiah. There's a fair bit of knowledge on Yeshua to be had, just not chronological accuracy.

But despite all that, no indication about Jeshua appearing in Jerusalem or being anointed 49 years after Cyrus' decree.

Accuracy again. There is no Darius the Mede. There is no Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnezzar. The Babylonian king at the time was Belshazzar (never a king, but the king who was in Babylon was Nabonidus). And the accuracy failures in the text go on, but you desperately cling to your sevens.

The rebuilding did not take 434 years, a lot less than that.

You're going to drone on trying to force accuracy into the text when you already know that it isn't appropriate, given the lack of accuracy elsewhere in the text. I guess I'll have to keep telling you because you seem to forget at every opportunity.

It does not matter if the rebuilding is considered finished in Darius the Great's 6th year (516 BC), or some years after Artaxerxes' 20th year, or in Darius II's 6th year, or some years after Artaxerxes II's 20th year (around 380 BC), the later being the best case for you, but only about 158 years (from Cyrus' decree) or 109 years (from the alleged year of Jeshua's arrival in Jerusalem or his anointment): there is a huge difference between 434 years and 158/109 years, way beyond what might be called inaccuracy.

I think you are trying to score some points about accuracy/inaccuracy. Have you seen the film "The Number 23"? It is about (number) obsession.

The 3½ years which I have consistently indicated as 1239 days is the prediction from the stoppage of sacrifice to the end of time/restoration of the temple. That 1239 days is only 96 days short of the final guesstimate in 12:12. In 9:27b we are in that last 3½ years, looking at the hope of retaking Jerusalem.

These days start "from the time that the continual burnt offering is taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate is set up". But the text does not say these days end at the restoration of the temple in 164 BC. End of time? You can make an argument on that, but that's not the same as the rededication of the temple.
Furthermore 1239 days is not the same as 1335 days and both durations cannot refer to the same event. I took that in account in my explanations on my webpage http://historical-jesus.info/danielx.html.
Both durations refer to events affecting the temple, but happening after the rededication. There are "updates" to keep pace with events happening up to the death of Antiochus IV.

They all deal with the termination of the situation begun with the stoppage of sacrifices and the pollution of the temple. Each vision couches the point in different terns, (7) the judgment on the little horn, (8) the restoration of the sanctuary, (9) the end is brought to the desolator, (12) "the end of these wonders".

1. You seem still to be crapping on about sevens, when it is just plain wrong, as the singular form שבוע in 9:27 demonstrates.

The singular form in 9:27 does not correspond to the plural form in 9:24-26, in 2 different ways: one letter goes missing from שבוע to שבע and the plural indication is irregular.

Again, Bernard, learn something about Hebrew. You wouldn't make such blunders. I've already given you one example of this precise issue with the word for "day": singular is YWM, plural YMYM. Another example, "sign": singular )WT, plural )TWT [")" = alef], or "ass": XMWR, XMRYM. Would you like a few dozen more? I also explained the irregular plural due to Aramaic influence. You seem to ignore lots of things that people say to you.

2. You still hope your fudge with these sevens is somehow accurate when you are out by two years or so.

I do not know what you are talking about. The year specified by the 70 sevens in my scheme shows 167 BC, the year of Jason being cut off, Antiochus' foray in Jerusalem and Jews being massacred in large number. No 2 years differences here.

The end of the 70 years is indicated as the end of the desolator. That is years after 167.

3. You don't understand Dan 9:25 because you have no familiarity with Hebrew at all. You rely on help that is purely apologetic and your choice of bibles is for some reason confessional. You need to use scholarly sources.

My understanding of Da 9:25 is confirmed by the "sevens" bringing me exactly at the right year.
If it fits, don't dismiss.

It doesn't fit. And a miss is as good as a mile.

Once again we are left with the same Bernard errors:
1. There is no example of seven being used in the Hebrew bible. The singular of the term in question as seen in Dan 9:27 is clearly "week", not "seven". Your attempt to use literal "sevens" is unjustified and is hilarious in contortedness.
2. You've totally messed up the grammar in your analysis of Dan 9:25.
3. Your fudged chronological explanation of the seventy weeks is wrong by a few years.
4. Your sources are not scholarly, but apologetic.
5. You try to explain Hebrew when you don't have any familiarity with the language.

[Bernard Muller]

Hi spin,

FFS, Bernard, that one week is the seventieth. Will you never get that into your little head?? You have certainly built a hedge around your sevens nonsense. It's so you can ignore reality.

You are the one avoiding the reality, that is how "week" is spelled in the Hebrew.
About that week meaning seven years, from Onias III being cut off to the restoration, according to the context of the verses, it has to start when Antiochus is in Jerusalem in 167 BC, years after Onias III has been cut off. So good bye to that week meaning 7 years. Or is it another inaccuracy?
" ... 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.
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." (Da 9:26-27 KJV)

There is no plural of seven.

That means "Daniel" invented that plural for his scheme. It is not the normal plural of "week" either.

Get it? 70 = 7 + 62 + 1. The last week is the same item as one of the seven or sixty-two weeks.

At the start of Da 9:26, we are already in the year following the one indicated by "62 sevens". So we are in the year indicated by "70 sevens" already. For you that "week" is 7 years and 62 "weeks" is 434 years, which does not make any sense.

And as we know the writers are extremely inaccurate about earlier times, so inaccuracy is only to be expected about earlier times. You just hope against reality that the seventy weeks is accurate.

Gosh, what was preventing educated Jews to know when Cyrus the Great vanquished Babylon and allowed captive Jews to return to Jerusalem. Do you think no record was kept for that very important event (from a Jewish perspective) and the year in question was not transmitted from generation to the next? I do not think it had to be a well kept secret.

I think you are trying to score some points about accuracy/inaccuracy. Have you seen the film "The Number 23"? It is about (number) obsession.

Yes, I can say your theory is totally absurd due to the math. Inaccuracy should not be used as a word in order to explain the huge gap between Cyrus' decree and Antiochus IV second foray in Jerusalem, between the historical data (372 years) and your math (483 to 490) (+- 1 year). You think it is just a small inconsequential detail, an inaccuracy. I disagree strongly.
Do you know of any scholar who have the same position than yours on this matter?

I've already given you one example of this precise issue with the word for "day": singular is YWM, plural YMYM. Another example, "sign": singular )WT, plural )TWT [")" = alef], or "ass": XMWR, XMRYM. Would you like a few dozen more? I also explained the irregular plural due to Aramaic influence. You seem to ignore lots of things that people say to you.

Ya, these different forms can be seen in all kind of Hebrew texts. But what makes "weeks/sevens" form in Da 9:24-26 so special is it appears only here in Hebrew texts.

The end of the 70 years is indicated as the end of the desolator. That is years after 167.

That's because you interpret the last week as being 7 years. You know I do not agree with that: here "week" is week.
Actually the end of your 70 years is not indicative of the end of the desolator (Da 9:27). All what the text says is that end will come some time after the cessation of the sacrifices. No mention of restoration.

Cordially, Bernard