Why 30's ad?

[spin]

Hi spin,

When I supplied the text, I gave the whole text, both in Hebrew and with a literal translation with no favor to one structural analysis or another

Sure, you had: "Know and understand from the going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to anointed prince sevens seven and sevens sixty and two rebuilt and restored street and wall and troubled times
And after the sevens sixty-two be cut off messiah"
I objected on street (should be plaza), wall (should be moat) and messiah (should be anointed one).
So, from the start, I do not think it is a good translation. Where does that come from? Are you the author of it? If you are, what is your credential regarding the Hebrew language? Are you an expert?
If yes, how does that translate in good English? (as far as I know, you presented a translation in broken English).

This is all trivial blather, Bernard. You are whinging about things that don't impact on your wrongheaded acceptance of confessional translation that you slavishly follow. Your general stuff above is nitpicking that doesn't in any way touch on the basic issue of the parsing of the grammatical structure of the verse. So, if you want to continue on streets or open spaces, go ahead. Waste your time. Talk about anything other than the topic of how to understand the time distribution in the verse. I'll wait for what you say on the topic.

You truncated the text at the sixty-two weeks to support your tendentious reading. All you've been doing is supporting modern punctuation.

But you separated "sevens seven" from "and sevens sixty".

Ridiculous response. Bernard, get real, will you?

I note the opening of the verse does not ask when Jerusalem will be restored and rebuilt. So "and sevens sixty and two rebuilt and restored street and wall" does not have to be considered as an answer.

What? There is no logic to this stuff. But then, there has been no logic to your failed justifications of why the writer might separate the seven and the sixty-two. I can understand a christian being so dizzy as to accept such a silly idea, but I am at a loss for your behavior.

But you haven't got the understand of the difference between a literal rending of the text and a translation that one might produce after dealing with the literal content. The text...

"Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed ruler comes there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks it will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.

...is broken into two parallel sections, omitting the unhighlighted materials

From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed ruler [comes] there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks it will be restored and rebuilt with street and trench

The verb translated as "restored" is 3rd p. fem. imperfective, so it's subject is Jerusalem (hence the "it"), but being imperfective suggests not the whole action but a durative form here and not strangely it is rather close to a duration, ie 62 weeks. The two durations (seven weeks and sixty-two weeks) suggests in fact two separate durations and one is indicated by the from/to pair and the other by the imperfective verb. It is natural to join the two durations not to each other (and where is a parallel example of such an occurrence?), but to the two clauses in the verse separated by the "and" before sixty-two. The most condemning fact against the confessional separation is that there is no "and" before the verb "restored": it is not linked to the previous part of the verse (except by the "and" before "sixty-two"). There is no justifiable logic to separate the sixty-two weeks from the following verb.

And I support modern punctuation because the 69 "seven" and 70 "seven" from Cyrus decree bring me exactly when Antiochus did this:
And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off,...

(While we are here, what happened sixty-two weeks before? According to you nothing. This is such a silly position for you to be in.)

...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.
And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, ..." RSV Dan 9:26-27

• 0 Decree by Cyrus
  7 restoration under Yeshua
  69 trouble with Antiochus

I guess you'd prefer to go with these hokey christian translations because they are so much better for your conclusions than to go with the world's most respected scholars, people like Bruce Metzger for the RSV and Jonas Greenfield for the NJPS.

Not this argument again: because some scholars are allegedly most respected, they have to be right all the time in their interpretative translations.

Yes, this argument again. You use shit sources so you have to disavow serious scholarship. It's such a fundamental issue that you lose all respect because you show no appreciation of the value of the work of the most respected scholars in the field. These people have proven their scholarly wares time and time again. Other scholars recognize their efforts. You cling to poor tendentious work.

There is no "for" equivalent in the Hebrew because they didn't need one. In fact that you have trouble understanding the literal translation indicates that it works differently from your expectations. It works in Hebrew as is, but in English we have to do it with a "for".

(bolding mine)
So you accept that "for" is legitimate in the translation. We are making progress.

The only progress here is the height of the wall you build around yourself to protect you from doing any further analysis.

So now we would have: "Know and understand from the going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to anointed prince sevens seven and for sevens sixty and two rebuilt and restored street and wall and troubled times
And after the sevens sixty-two be cut off messiah"
Back to the same problem: it did not take 434 years to rebuild and restore Jerusalem, streets, plaza, moat, wall and temple.
OR
If you insist on that other translation of yours: "sixty-two weeks it will remain restored and rebuilt.", then 434 years considerably overshoot 168-164 BC, the time when the last part of 'Daniel' was written:
Does not make sense to me either way.

Somehow you refuse to work with the content of 9:25 because it makes your contraption fall apart. That's why you bang on with the necessity for accuracy from a text with proven inaccuracy.

Only through fudging the data that makes it unfalsifiable. And to do so you need to assume your conclusion just as surely as the fundamentalist does.

No fudging: I counted the years from Cyrus first year as king over Babylon and took what is usually translated as week or seven as meaning digit seven. If that digit appears in a particular year, once or twice, I incremented by one or two the digit seven counter. That's it.

As it hasn't sunk in yet, "seven" is not "week". Get it? They are two different words, just as "state" and "station" are (despite their same origin). Your fantasy falls apart here. Crash.

"Now, since I claimed the seventy 'sevens' were meant to point at 167 B.C.E., the year of the unsuccessful resistance (as per parallel passage 11:31-35a) following the desecration of the temple in Nov/Dec 168, I have to demonstrate it, do I?
I never heard or read about the following numerical scheme. It's hard to believe that it has not been discovered (or is there a cover up?).
No tricks, no shortened, overlapped or removed years and "from the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (Da9:25 => Ezr1:1-2 + Isa44:28) as the starting point.
Here it goes. Pay attention to the bold numbers:

Note: first Year of Cyrus as king over Babylon: October 539 - October 538 B.C.E.
Legend:
Year B.C.E., Years from Cyrus' decree, Number of occurrences of the "7" (שבע) in the preceding years

539, 00, 538, 01, 537, 02, 536, 03, 535, 04, 534, 05, 533, 06, 532, 07, 01 531, 08, 530, 09,
529, 10, 528, 11, 527, 12, 526, 13, 525, 14, 524, 15, 523, 16, 522, 17, 02 521, 18, 520, 19,
519, 20, 518, 21, 517, 22, 516, 23, 515, 24, 514, 25, 513, 26, 512, 27, 03 511, 28, 510, 29,
509, 30, 508, 31, 507, 32, 506, 33, 505, 34, 504, 35, 503, 36, 502, 37, 04 501, 38, 500, 39,
499, 40, 498, 41, 497, 42, 496, 43, 495, 44, 494, 45, 493, 46, 492, 47, 05 491, 48, 490, 49,
489, 50, 488, 51, 487, 52, 486, 53, 485, 54, 484, 55, 483, 56, 482, 57, 06 481, 58, 480, 59,
479, 60, 478, 61, 477, 62, 476, 63, 475, 64, 474, 65, 473, 66, 472, 67, 07 471, 68, 470, 69,
469, 70, 08 468, 71, 09 467, 72, 10 466, 73, 11 465, 74, 12 464, 75, 13 463, 76, 14 462, 77, 16 461, 78, 17 460, 79, 18
459, 80, 458, 81, 457, 82, 456, 83, 455, 84, 454, 85, 453, 86, 452, 87, 19 451, 88, 450, 89,
449, 90, 448, 91, 447, 92, 446, 93, 445, 94, 444, 95, 443, 96, 442, 97, 20 441, 98, 440, 99,
<snip>
The reader should get the idea by now. To see the entire table (and much better presented), see http://historical-jesus.info/daniel.html. What follows is the last 3 rows.
</snip>
189, 350, 188, 351, 187, 352, 186, 353, 185, 354, 184, 355, 183, 356, 182, 357, 66 181, 358, 180, 359,
179, 360, 178, 361, 177, 362, 176, 363, 175, 364, 174, 365, 173, 366, 172, 367, 67 171, 368, 170, 369,
169, 370, 68 168, 371, 69 167, 372, 70

Here we are! The mystery is over.

So this hairy piece of fudging, with need to use "seven" instead of "week" (have you looked them up? Of course not) aims for accuracy when the writer doesn't even understand how many Persian kings there were. The writer didn't mean weeks as the word indicates, but he meant "seven", so you count every seven in order to foreshorten the duration. And you don't see that that is just one unfalsifiable fudge.

Have you seen how numbers were represented in Hebrew? Obviously you haven't. They used letters. For example, alef was a 1, bet was a two, waw represented a seven, yod a ten, kaf a twenty, ayin is seventy. Hence seventy seven is ayin waw. But you are two interested in modern times and the Arabic numerical system. You might have conceived of your fudge, but there is no easy way for a Hebrew writer to have done so. Crash goes the theory. But, but, it works. It may get you around the desired time, but you have no way of knowing.

The "Abomination & Desolation" of early December 168 B.C.E. would have occurred within the last "7" year of the 70 7's, assuming (the alleged) Cyrus' decree was believed issued days (late October to early November 539 B.C.E.) after the conquest of Babylon. The last "7" year (that is the 372th year --or year 372-- after Cyrus' decree) would end in 167 (Oct-Nov), giving a few months for the remaining Jews (the "saints") to do as described in 9:24 (and stay Jew), in order to get the rewards as explained in 7:14b,18,22,27;12:3.
A coincidence? I beg to differ. The author was very lucky to find a simple numerical scheme "evidencing" events of 168 and 167 as part of a God's plan.

According to the above meaning of the sixty-nine & seventy sevens, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Daniel Part 2 and Josephus' Antiquities, the sequence of events can be reconstructed as such, with approximate dates:
a) 170: first campaign in Egypt, followed by first foray in Jerusalem by Antiochus IV.
b) 169 or early 168: Daniel chapter 7 (Part 2a) is written then.
c) 168: second campaign in Egypt by Antiochus. Jason enters Jerusalem then.
d) 168, around November 10th: Jason is "cut off" and goes in exile.
e) 168, around November 20th: Antiochus and his army enter Jerusalem (second foray).
f) 168, around December 1st: a pagan altar is set up above the Jewish one (abomination of desolation).
g) Ten days later: pagan animal sacrifices are started on the new altar.
h) Late December 168 or early 167: Antiochus leaves Jerusalem with most of his army.
i) Massacres of Jews (which started when the Seleucid king entered Jerusalem) continue for a while after Antiochus left.
j) 167, late winter to summer: Daniel Part 2b is written then."

As I've already noted, the "prince of the covenant" was swept away (11:22) long before the first Egyptian campaign (11:25ff). Bang goes the theory.

Now if the battle of Emmaus took place in the summer of 165 and the process of getting to, then taking, Jerusalem dragged out until 164 and the death of Antiochus was not long from the rededication (1 Macc has it after, 2 Macc before), it would then seem that the timetable derived from your fudge is a few years out. The end of the prediction is the rededication, which must have been seen as a real possibility at the time of the writing of 9:27. Perhaps you have some real world way of dating these events contrary to what I've proposed.

So the contentions:

1. your failed support for the confessional analysis of the durations in 9:25
2. lack of explanation for what happened 62 weeks before the anointed one was cut off
3. falsified contender for the anointed one (wrong timeframe, wrong faction)
4. week ≠ seven (& your count is incoherent based on how Hebrew wrote numbers)
5. your proposed chronology doesn't seem to have historical support.

[Bernard Muller]

Hi spin,

Where does that come from? Are you the author of it? If you are, what is your credential regarding the Hebrew language? Are you an expert?

Still waiting for your answers.

The verb translated as "restored" is 3rd p. fem. imperfective, so it's subject is Jerusalem (hence the "it"), but being imperfective suggests not the whole action but a durative form here and not strangely it is rather close to a duration, ie 62 weeks.

So we agree on the "it". The imperfect indicates the restoration and rebuilding was not instant. I agree on that. And you cannot explain the 62 weeks, you blame 'Daniel' being in error. I do not have to imagine that.
Furthermore it is most likely some educated Jews were keeping a close tab (that is the dates) on when their temple was destroyed, when Cyrus liberated them (allowing them to go back to Jerusalem & rebuild the temple), when the temple was rebuilt. So it is hard for me to accept your theory that "Daniel" was in error on the 62 "seven".

The two durations (seven weeks and sixty-two weeks) suggests in fact two separate durations

(bolding mine)
Oh! Now you are talking about a suggestion only!!!

But you separated "sevens seven" from "and sevens sixty".

Ridiculous response. Bernard, get real, will you?

Really, so what did you mean by:

"The two durations (seven weeks and sixty-two weeks) suggests in fact two separate durations

(bolding mine)

(While we are here, what happened sixty-two weeks before? According to you nothing. This is such a silly position for you to be in.)

Why not! I made clear already that "Daniel" tried to explain the 69 by adding 7 (a godly number) to 62 (age of Darius the Mede when conquering Babylon).

As it hasn't sunk in yet, "seven" is not "week"

I know. Actually I fought against interpreting "week" from the underlying Hebrew word. The "seven" you are referring to is for me the number seven. More later ...

So this hairy piece of fudging, with need to use "seven" instead of "week"

What! It looks you are contradicting yourself (see preceding quote). Explain that.
What fudging! it is as simple as it gets.

the writer doesn't even understand how many Persian kings there were.

Second time you mention that. I asked you already where does that come from. Answer my question and provide the evidence.

The writer didn't mean weeks as the word indicates, but he meant "seven", so you count every seven in order to foreshorten the duration.

So, I agree with "seven" not being "week". Why do you imply the opposite?
"so you count every seven in order to foreshorten the duration." What's wrong with that?
Where does it say in 'Daniel' otherwise?

Have you seen how numbers were represented in Hebrew? Obviously you haven't. They used letters. For example, alef was a 1, bet was a two, waw represented a seven, yod a ten, kaf a twenty, ayin is seventy. Hence seventy seven is ayin waw.

I agree with that. Maybe I was confusing when I wrote earlier about "digit 7".
In front of my table, I wrote: "Number of occurrences of the "7" (שבע) in the preceding years"

But you are two interested in modern times and the Arabic numerical system

No, I was looking at and counting the 'שבע'.

But, but, it works. It may get you around the desired time, but you have no way of knowing.

Yes, it works. And it is not even "around" but at the desired two years. And because of that, that confirms I am right, do you like it or not.

As I've already noted, the "prince of the covenant" was swept away (11:22) long before the first Egyptian campaign (11:25ff). Bang goes the theory.

That's because you do not accept Jason as the anointed prince and you stick with Onias III.

Now if the battle of Emmaus took place in the summer of 165 and the process of getting to, then taking, Jerusalem dragged out until 164 and the death of Antiochus was not long from the rededication (1 Macc has it after, 2 Macc before), it would then seem that the timetable derived from your fudge is a few years out. The end of the prediction is the rededication, which must have been seen as a real possibility at the time of the writing of 9:27. Perhaps you have some real world way of dating these events contrary to what I've proposed.

I have no idea why you bring about the battle of Emmaus in 166 BC (according to Wikipedia).
According to wikipedia on "temple of Jerusalem":
"Mattathias' son Judas Maccabeus, now called "The Hammer", re-dedicated the temple in 165 BCE and the Jews celebrate this event to this day as a major part of the festival of Hanukkah. The temple was rededicated under Judas Maccabaeus in 164 BCE."
According to wikipedia on "Antiochus IV":
"Antíochos D' ho Epiphanḗs, "God Manifest";[1] c. 215 BC – 164 BC) was a Greek king of the Seleucid Empire from 175 BC until his death in 164 BC."
The 70 "seven" of my table points to one year (or several months) after Antiochus IV's second foray in Jerusalem, and after subsequent massacres of Jews in caves, when everything seemed lost and a message of hope was needed (and not to the year of the dedication of the temple). I made myself very clear on that.
The book of Daniel was then "updated" all the way to the time of the death of Antiochus IV. I explained that in my second webpage on 'Daniel': http://historical-jesus.info/danielx.html

So the contentions:

I addressed already all these alleged contentions.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

Hi spin,

Where does that come from? Are you the author of it? If you are, what is your credential regarding the Hebrew language? Are you an expert?

Still waiting for your answers.

Just be happy that I keep showing the fact that you shouldn't be making close analyses of Hebrew texts through your lack of knowledge.

The verb translated as "restored" is 3rd p. fem. imperfective, so it's subject is Jerusalem (hence the "it"), but being imperfective suggests not the whole action but a durative form here and not strangely it is rather close to a duration, ie 62 weeks.

So we agree on the "it".

As much as we agree on "for".

The imperfect indicates the restoration and rebuilding was not instant.

No it doesn't. It means that the state of restoration and being built had duration.

I agree on that. And you cannot explain the 62 weeks, you blame 'Daniel' being in error.

What I call "inaccuracy" you call "error".

I do not have to imagine that.
Furthermore it is most likely some educated Jews were keeping a close tab

The same ones who produced "Darius the Mede" or "Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnezzar" or "four kings of Persia". I like your fantasy world.

(that is the dates) on when their temple was destroyed, when Cyrus liberated them (allowing them to go back to Jerusalem & rebuild the temple), when the temple was rebuilt. So it is hard for me to accept your theory that "Daniel" was in error on the 62 "seven".

Your "Daniel" has proven to be so accurate.

The two durations (seven weeks and sixty-two weeks) suggests in fact two separate durations

(bolding mine)
Oh! Now you are talking about a suggestion only!!!

It's part of the evidence I provided to wean you from the stupidity.

But you separated "sevens seven" from "and sevens sixty".

Ridiculous response. Bernard, get real, will you?

Really, so what did you mean by:

"The two durations (seven weeks and sixty-two weeks) suggests in fact two separate durations

(bolding mine)

Go back and look at the specific context, Bernard. That might help you understand what I was responding to and therefore what I meant.

I note here that you completely omitted the issue of the "and" which is necessary in the Hebrew to grammatically attach the clause starting with "restored" (תשוב, you know the word you thought was "again") to the rest of the verse. The only "and" is the one before "weeks sixty-two".

(While we are here, what happened sixty-two weeks before? According to you nothing. This is such a silly position for you to be in.)

Why not! I made clear already that "Daniel" tried to explain the 69 by adding 7 (a godly number) to 62 (age of Darius the Mede when conquering Babylon).

So what happened sixty-two weeks before before the anointed one was cut off? You must be able to say sixty-two weeks after what, and a normal reading says the city was restored with the coming of the anointed prince. But you cannot say what happened because you have deliberately obfuscated the text.

As it hasn't sunk in yet, "seven" is not "week"

I know. Actually I fought against interpreting "week" from the underlying Hebrew word. The "seven" you are referring to is for me the number seven. More later ...

Too bad, you wouldn't have made such a blunder. They are two different words and the fact is clear in 9:27 and its singular "one week". That word for "week" is certainly not the same as "seven". But you'll avoid this as you avoid responding to most things.

So this hairy piece of fudging, with need to use "seven" instead of "week"

What! It looks you are contradicting yourself (see preceding quote). Explain that.
What fudging! it is as simple as it gets.

Pretending that "seven" and "week" are the same, allowing you to play tricks so that 70 weeks gets to mean something else. That eisegesis is fudging.

the writer doesn't even understand how many Persian kings there were.

Second time you mention that. I asked you already where does that come from. Answer my question and provide the evidence.

Daniel 11:2.

The writer didn't mean weeks as the word indicates, but he meant "seven", so you count every seven in order to foreshorten the duration.

So, I agree with "seven" not being "week". Why do you imply the opposite?

And black is white, but they are not. Your fudge requires you to treat "week" as "seven". And seventy weeks is after all 490 "days".

"so you count every seven in order to foreshorten the duration." What's wrong with that?
Where does it say in 'Daniel' otherwise?

Where does it say to count every "seven"?

Have you seen how numbers were represented in Hebrew? Obviously you haven't. They used letters. For example, alef was a 1, bet was a two, waw represented a seven, yod a ten, kaf a twenty, ayin is seventy. Hence seventy seven is ayin waw.

I agree with that. Maybe I was confusing when I wrote earlier about "digit 7".
In front of my table, I wrote: "Number of occurrences of the "7" (שבע) in the preceding years"

So you imagine some scribe having written out your table in longhand??

But you are two interested in modern times and the Arabic numerical system

No, I was looking at and counting the 'שבע'.

Why? The text clearly talks of seventy weeks, not seventy sevens. This is underlined with the singular week in 9:27. It doesn't say "one seven", but "one week".

But, but, it works. It may get you around the desired time, but you have no way of knowing.

Yes, it works. And it is not even "around" but at the desired two years. And because of that, that confirms I am right, do you like it or not.

You make sense to yourself as you write, but it means nothing to me, lacking your contextualization.

As I've already noted, the "prince of the covenant" was swept away (11:22) long before the first Egyptian campaign (11:25ff). Bang goes the theory.

That's because you do not accept Jason as the anointed prince and you stick with Onias III.

I've already indicated why. You have failed to show how Jason could possibly be a suitable candidate. You still ignore the fact that Jason introduces novelties from Greek culture into Jerusalem, forcing for example young men to hide their circumcision because Greek education required them to be naked and expose themselves to being seen as circumcised, which clearly wasn't ok. This cannot be acceptable to the writers of Daniel who are religious traditionalists.

Now if the battle of Emmaus took place in the summer of 165 and the process of getting to, then taking, Jerusalem dragged out until 164 and the death of Antiochus was not long from the rededication (1 Macc has it after, 2 Macc before), it would then seem that the timetable derived from your fudge is a few years out. The end of the prediction is the rededication, which must have been seen as a real possibility at the time of the writing of 9:27. Perhaps you have some real world way of dating these events contrary to what I've proposed.

I have no idea why you bring about the battle of Emmaus in 166 BC (according to Wikipedia).

Because it was after that battle that the prophecies took shape, ie when the hope for taking back Jerusalem became realistic.

According to wikipedia on "temple of Jerusalem":

I would not rely on Wiki entries that are liable to religious interference. Working from Bezalel Bar Kochva's "Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids" Cambridge 1989/2002, p.472, Emmaus happened at the end of summer 165, not long after Antiochus left for the eastern satrapies.

The 70 "seven" of my table points to one year (or several months) after Antiochus IV's second foray in Jerusalem, and after subsequent massacres of Jews in caves, when everything seemed lost and a message of hope was needed (and not to the year of the dedication of the temple). I made myself very clear on that.

And it is wrong. A miss is as good as a mile.

The book of Daniel was then "updated" all the way to the time of the death of Antiochus IV. I explained that in my second webpage on 'Daniel': http://historical-jesus.info/danielx.html

I agree that it was updated, but only a maximum of 185 days from the 2300 mornings and evenings in 8:14, the earliest of the final visions. Three and a half years is 1239 days, ie less than 100 days shorter than 12:12's 1335 days, a tad over three months. Emmaus was well over a year before the rededication and it was the marker for hope in an end in sight. We are looking at real-time adjustments. They were that close to the impending end. 1150 > 1239 > 1290 > 1335. These changes were not made years ahead.

So the contentions:

I addressed already all these alleged contentions.

You've obfuscated them. You are having difficulty addressing them.

[Bernard Muller]

Hi spin,

Bernard Muller wrote:
Hi spin,
Where does that come from? Are you the author of it? If you are, what is your credential regarding the Hebrew language? Are you an expert?

Still waiting for your answers.

(bolding mine)

Just be happy that I keep showing the fact that you shouldn't be making close analyses of Hebrew texts through your lack of knowledge.

That still not an answer to my questions (in bold characters). What are you trying to hide?

Bernard Muller wrote:
The imperfect indicates the restoration and rebuilding was not instant.

No it doesn't. It means that the state of restoration and being built had duration.

I do not see any conflict here: not instant implies a duration.

Bernard Muller wrote:
I agree on that. And you cannot explain the 62 weeks, you blame 'Daniel' being in error.

What I call "inaccuracy" you call "error".

Inaccuracy as compare to what? What is your reference? How many days you think would be the accurate value?

Bernard Muller wrote:
I do not have to imagine that.
Furthermore it is most likely some educated Jews were keeping a close tab

The same ones who produced "Darius the Mede" or "Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnezzar" or "four kings of Persia". I like your fantasy world.

It is not the same thing. The temple status was of paramount importance for Jews. Long ago foreign kings were not.

I note here that you completely omitted the issue of the "and" which is necessary in the Hebrew to grammatically attach the clause starting with "restored" (תשוב, you know the word you thought was "again") to the rest of the verse. The only "and" is the one before "weeks sixty-two".

And from where did you get that? Reference please.
You forgot one "and": there is also an "and" between "sixty" and "two". And the "sixty and two" was meant to be understood as sixty-two. So why would "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks" not mean sixty-nine weeks?

Too bad, you wouldn't have made such a blunder. They are two different words and the fact is clear in 9:27 and its singular "one week". That word for "week" is certainly not the same as "seven". But you'll avoid this as you avoid responding to most things.

OK, it escaped me that "weeks" which appears in confessional Bible such as the KJV (in Da 9:24-26) is understood by you as literal weeks.
However the word in question (Hebrew for "weeks" in Da 9:25 & 26) does not spell exactly as the Hebrew word for "weeks", but more like "sevens".
- From the NET bible (https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Daniel+9:24): "Heb “sevens” (also later in this line and in v. 26)." (also for Da 9:24).
- According to the 'Encyclopedia of BIBLE DIFFICULTIES', Gleason L.Archer:
"the word for "week" is sabu [Hebrew in italics, approximate rendition only (the phonetic signs could not be reproduced)], which is derived from seba, the word for "seven". Its normal plural is feminine in form: s_buot. Only in this chapter of Daniel does it appears in the masculine plural sabuim ... it is strongly suggestive of the idea 'heptad' (a series or combination of seven), rather than a "week" in the sense of a series of seven days."
- One definition of heptad: "a series or group of seven" http://www.yourdictionary.com/heptad
- From http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 7620&t=KJV, definition for "week" in Da 9:25-26: "seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week"

And in your own translation, you used "sevens" "Know and understand from the going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to anointed prince sevens seven and sevens sixty and two rebuilt and restored street and wall and troubled times
And after the sevens sixty-two be cut off messiah".
Are you changing your mind, switching from "sevens" to "weeks"?

But you made a good point: in Da 9:27, the word is definitely "week". I will have to make a small change on my webpage. But no significant consequence. It looks now for me that Antiochus sent heralds for one week across the city announcing the new covenant , and in the middle of these 7 days, interrupted the Jewish sacrifices.

Pretending that "seven" and "week" are the same, allowing you to play tricks so that 70 weeks gets to mean something else. That eisegesis is fudging.

No I don't: "sevens" and "weeks" are not the same.

Bernard Muller wrote:
the writer doesn't even understand how many Persian kings there were.

Second time you mention that. I asked you already where does that come from. Answer my question and provide the evidence.

Daniel 11:2.

Before Darius the Great (the fourth king according to Da 11:2), there were three Persian kings (Cyrus the Great, Cambyses and Bardiya/Gautama). Sure, there were Persian kings before Cyrus, but they ruled only over a small kingdom and were vassals to the Mede kings. For a Jew then, everything started when Cyrus conquered Babylon.

Where does it say to count every "seven"?

Da 9:24-26. Maybe specifically not counting but indicating his scheme.

Why? The text clearly talks of seventy weeks, not seventy sevens. This is underlined with the singular week in 9:27. It doesn't say "one seven", but "one week".

You know now why I do not agree. Again what happened to the "sevens" of your translation?
I said I agree with you on Da 9:27.

This cannot be acceptable to the writers of Daniel who are religious traditionalists

Regardless of what Jason, high priest, did during his last stay in Jerusalem, he was still then 'anointed prince".
If an elected president does horrible during his presidency, he is still an elected president.

Jason introduces novelties from Greek culture into Jerusalem, forcing for example young men to hide their circumcision because Greek education required them to be naked and expose themselves to being seen as circumcised, which clearly wasn't ok

That's relatively minor, maybe not to offend more traditional Jews who did not want to see completely naked young men running around.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

Hi spin,

Hi spin,
Where does that come from? Are you the author of it? If you are, what is your credential regarding the Hebrew language? Are you an expert?

Still waiting for your answers.

(bolding mine)

Just be happy that I keep showing the fact that you shouldn't be making close analyses of Hebrew texts through your lack of knowledge.

That still not an answer to my questions (in bold characters). What are you trying to hide?

You can keep asking as long as your heart desires. You're the one who is messing up the Hebrew. The deflection won't work.

The imperfect indicates the restoration and rebuilding was not instant.

No it doesn't. It means that the state of restoration and being built had duration.

I do not see any conflict here: not instant implies a duration.

People didn't keep restoring and building for umpteen weeks. The state of having been restored and built is what had duration.

I agree on that. And you cannot explain the 62 weeks, you blame 'Daniel' being in error.

What I call "inaccuracy" you call "error".

Inaccuracy as compare to what? What is your reference? How many days you think would be the accurate value?

??

I do not have to imagine that.
Furthermore it is most likely some educated Jews were keeping a close tab

The same ones who produced "Darius the Mede" or "Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnezzar" or "four kings of Persia". I like your fantasy world.

It is not the same thing. The temple status was of paramount importance for Jews. Long ago foreign kings were not.

That's called special pleading. I say they weren't accurate. You say but they were with regard to the temple. And how would you know?? You say you can massage the evidence so it can be in the ballpark. No evidence here.

I note here that you completely omitted the issue of the "and" which is necessary in the Hebrew to grammatically attach the clause starting with "restored" (תשוב, you know the word you thought was "again") to the rest of the verse. The only "and" is the one before "weeks sixty-two".

And from where did you get that? Reference please.
You forgot one "and": there is also an "and" between "sixty" and "two". And the "sixty and two" was meant to be understood as sixty-two.

I didn't forget it. I said the only one (necessary in the Hebrew to grammatically attach the clause) was the one before "weeks sixty". The "and" before the two is within the number phrase and not available. Jeez, Bernard. Do you really think misplaced pedantry is of any help?

So why would "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks" not mean sixty-nine weeks?

If you were doing arithmetic, it would be the same thing. But you're not. We are trying to parse the Hebrew sentence and you have failed to grasp the necessity of the "and". You hook the current clause to the previous one via the "and", but you have robbed it to fudge a sixty-nine. That means there's no way to attach the following clause. So, obviously, the "and" before the sixty weeks is the means of attaching the clause. Bang goes your theory once again.

Too bad, you wouldn't have made such a blunder. They are two different words and the fact is clear in 9:27 and its singular "one week". That word for "week" is certainly not the same as "seven". But you'll avoid this as you avoid responding to most things.

OK, it escaped me that "weeks" which appears in confessional Bible such as the KJV (in Da 9:24-26) is understood by you as literal weeks.
However the word in question (Hebrew for "weeks" in Da 9:25 & 26) does not spell exactly as the Hebrew word for "weeks", but more like "sevens".
- From the NET bible (https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Daniel+9:24): "Heb “sevens” (also later in this line and in v. 26)." (also for Da 9:24).
- According to the 'Encyclopedia of BIBLE DIFFICULTIES', Gleason L.Archer:

Gleason Archer? You've gotta be kidding me, Bernard. You go to that apologist for your defense. Gleason Archer is who all the nutter fundies run to, when they want to pretend to know something about Hebrew. When are you going to get serious support material for Hebrew? Hendrickson produces a cheap Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon. There are lots of grammars available.

"the word for "week" is sabu [Hebrew in italics, approximate rendition only (the phonetic signs could not be reproduced)], which is derived from seba, the word for "seven". Its normal plural is feminine in form: s_buot. Only in this chapter of Daniel does it appears in the masculine plural sabuim ... it is strongly suggestive of the idea 'heptad' (a series or combination of seven), rather than a "week" in the sense of a series of seven days."
- One definition of heptad: "a series or group of seven" http://www.yourdictionary.com/heptad
- From http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 7620&t=KJV, definition for "week" in Da 9:25-26: "seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week"

Must you honestly cite not only Gleason Archer but also Strongs? In the previous incarnation of this forum I strongly recommended that no-one with an inch of linguistic nouse use Strongs. Strongs has built in apologetics. Archer froths apologetics. And here you are, a non-christian, defending your theories with apologetics. Great. You haven't learned enough about Hebrew to know where these apologetic sources are selling you down the river.

Try this: find me an example in the Hebrew bible for the meaning you desire. Clutching at "heptad" doesn't help you in your backdoor defense for counting "sevens". You actually need "sevens" for your theory, not "heptads".

And in your own translation, you used "sevens" "Know and understand from the going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to anointed prince sevens seven and sevens sixty and two rebuilt and restored street and wall and troubled times
And after the sevens sixty-two be cut off messiah".
Are you changing your mind, switching from "sevens" to "weeks"?

I wasn't interested at the time, but on closer inspection it is clear, given that the singular form in 9:25 is undoubtably "week", there can be no equivocation.

But you made a good point: in Da 9:27, the word is definitely "week". I will have to make a small change on my webpage. But no significant consequence. It looks now for me that Antiochus sent heralds for one week across the city announcing the new covenant , and in the middle of these 7 days, interrupted the Jewish sacrifices.

All of your weeks are weeks. The seven weeks are weeks, not seven sevens. The sixty-two weeks are weeks. Your fudging doesn't work. You can't turn the weeks into sevens unless you appeal to apologetic sources who aren't interested in scholarship.

Pretending that "seven" and "week" are the same, allowing you to play tricks so that 70 weeks gets to mean something else. That eisegesis is fudging.

No I don't: "sevens" and "weeks" are not the same.

So you are going to abandon your fudging?

the writer doesn't even understand how many Persian kings there were.

Second time you mention that. I asked you already where does that come from. Answer my question and provide the evidence.

Daniel 11:2.

Before Darius the Great (the fourth king according to Da 11:2), there were three Persian kings (Cyrus the Great, Cambyses and Bardiya/Gautama). Sure, there were Persian kings before Cyrus, but they ruled only over a small kingdom and were vassals to the Mede kings. For a Jew then, everything started when Cyrus conquered Babylon.

Failed. Between Darius the Mede and Alexander the Great there were only four Persian kings for this writer.

Where does it say to count every "seven"?

Da 9:24-26. Maybe specifically not counting but indicating his scheme.

Ie nowhere. You made it up. The prophecy talks of weeks, not sevens. You simply ignore this fact. Bang goes the theory.

Why? The text clearly talks of seventy weeks, not seventy sevens. This is underlined with the singular week in 9:27. It doesn't say "one seven", but "one week".

You know now why I do not agree. Again what happened to the "sevens" of your translation?
I said I agree with you on Da 9:27.

That one week is the seventieth of the seventy weeks, Bernard. You know, there were 69 weeks before it. There were seventy weeks in the prophecy, not seventy sevens. Bang goes the theory.

This cannot be acceptable to the writers of Daniel who are religious traditionalists

Regardless of what Jason, high priest, did during his last stay in Jerusalem, he was still then 'anointed prince".
If an elected president does horrible during his presidency, he is still an elected president.

Oh, so the traditionalist writers of Daniel were not interested in a good high priest (at least as indicated in the books of the Maccabees), but a bad one. Fail again.

Jason introduces novelties from Greek culture into Jerusalem, forcing for example young men to hide their circumcision because Greek education required them to be naked and expose themselves to being seen as circumcised, which clearly wasn't ok

That's relatively minor, maybe not to offend more traditional Jews who did not want to see completely naked young men running around.

Stop bullshitting, Bernard. You've read the reactions in the Maccabees. What Jason did was an offence to the traditional religion and you want to make Daniel see him as the "anointed prince"/"anointed one". It just doesn't work. You are not being serious. Jason is not a realistic candidate for the anointed one/prince of the covenant. Chronologically, he is not Daniel's anointed one (9:25), too early for him, but you omitted to respond to the issue.

So you have failed to deal with
1. seven ≠ week, so you can't just count sevens (your lips moved, but nothing came out)
2. the way to connect the clause starting with תשוב to the rest of the verse (the missing "and")
3. you cannot say, given (v26) "and after 62 weeks", what happened 62 weeks before.
4. your chronology doesn't support Jason or history. It's about two years too short.

And I have looked closely at what you've said in the past, but you haven't responded to these things.

[Bernard Muller]

Hi spin,

You can keep asking as long as your heart desires. You're the one who is messing up the Hebrew. The deflection won't work.

That tells me you do not know much about Hebrew even if you pretend to be an expert.

People didn't keep restoring and building for umpteen weeks. The state of having been restored and built is what had duration.

Clear as mud. What do you mean?

Inaccuracy as compare to what? What is your reference? How many days you think would be the accurate value?

??

That's not a valid answer. You are avoiding my questions over and over again.

I didn't forget it. I said the only one (necessary in the Hebrew to grammatically attach the clause) was the one before "weeks sixty". The "and" before the two is within the number phrase and not available.

But you wrote: "The only "and" is the one before "weeks sixty-two""

Gleason Archer? You've gotta be kidding me, Bernard. You go to that apologist for your defense. Gleason Archer is who all the nutter fundies run to, when they want to pretend to know something about Hebrew. When are you going to get serious support material for Hebrew? Hendrickson produces a cheap Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon. There are lots of grammars available.

How do you know Archer & others are wrong? Counter-evidence please. You can use the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon.

Try this: find me an example in the Hebrew bible for the meaning you desire. Clutching at "heptad" doesn't help you in your backdoor defense for counting "sevens". You actually need "sevens" for your theory, not "heptads".

The word used for "weeks" in Da 9:24-26 is spelled much closer to the Hebrew for "sevens" than for "weeks".

it is clear, given that the singular form in 9:25 is undoubtably "week", there can be no equivocation.

There is no singular form of "week" in Da 9:25.

All of your weeks are weeks. The seven weeks are weeks, not seven sevens. The sixty-two weeks are weeks. Your fudging doesn't work. You can't turn the weeks into sevens unless you appeal to apologetic sources who aren't interested in scholarship.

OK, let's talk about your weeks.
7 weeks after the decree is 49 days, which timewise would include a group of Jews getting decided and organized to go to Jerusalem from Babylonia (1200 miles about, at least 60 days at 20 miles per day and without stopping for days of rest.). That's quite short for time. And "Daniel" would know that Jeshua arrived in Jerusalem 49 days after the promulgation of the decree!
Next, where would the 62 weeks lead two? How do you fit the 62 weeks in your theory? BTW, the temple was not rebuilt 62 weeks or 69 weeks after the decree, but much later. And after the restoration, it lasted a lot more than 62 or 69 weeks.
Answer my questions.

And what would happen at 70 weeks after the decree? Oh, that was during Antiochus IV's times, but 70 weeks after Cyrus' decree does not bring you close to 168-164 BC. I am inquiring. Answer me on this. Do not avoid my questions.

"sevens" and "weeks" are not the same.

So you are going to abandon your fudging?

Try to understand. I am not abandoning any so-called fudging. The Hebrew for "sevens" is wrongly translated as "weeks" in Da 9:24-26.

That one week is the seventieth of the seventy weeks, Bernard. You know, there were 69 weeks before it. There were seventy weeks in the prophecy, not seventy sevens. Bang goes the theory.

No, "Daniel" does not say that.
During the 69 sevens (168-167), the anointed prince comes. After the 69 sevens are completed (167-166), he leaves. Then soon after Antiochus IV comes. After a few months he leaves. But then some time after, Jews are massacred in caves. That's when Daniel-2 is written, during the 70 sevens.

Oh, so the traditionalist writers of Daniel were not interested in a good high priest (at least as indicated in the books of the Maccabees), but a bad one.

Somehow, despite the murders he ordered to stay in power, our author had interest in Jason, as the legitimate last high priest.

1. seven ≠ week, so you can't just count sevens (your lips moved, but nothing came out)

"Sevens" is not equal to "weeks". The Hebrew for "sevens" (in Da 9:24-26) is not the same than the Hebrew for "weeks". The Hebrew for "sevens" is spelled closer to "seven" than the Hebrew for "week".

2. the way to connect the clause starting with תשוב to the rest of the verse (the missing "and")

What missing "and"? There is no connection. "it will" or "it is" is implied but not written. And you have never explained how your sixty-two weeks relate with the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem. I examined two ways and none makes sense.
Actually, your understanding about "weeks" cannot fit the historical context involving Jeshua, Onias III, and Antiochus IV.

3. you cannot say, given (v26) "and after 62 weeks", what happened 62 weeks before.

I do not need to if seven sevens is added up with sixty-two sevens = sixty-nine weeks.

4. your chronology doesn't support Jason or history. It's about two years too short.

Explain why? I think it's right on.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

Hi spin,

You can keep asking as long as your heart desires. You're the one who is messing up the Hebrew. The deflection won't work.

That tells me you do not know much about Hebrew even if you pretend to be an expert.

You know what you know and I know what you know and they are the same.

People didn't keep restoring and building for umpteen weeks. The state of having been restored and built is what had duration.

Clear as mud. What do you mean?

Jesus, do you know what a state is as against an action?

Inaccuracy as compare to what? What is your reference? How many days you think would be the accurate value?

??

That's not a valid answer. You are avoiding my questions over and over again.

Not meaningful questions.

I didn't forget it. I said the only one (necessary in the Hebrew to grammatically attach the clause) was the one before "weeks sixty". The "and" before the two is within the number phrase and not available.

But you wrote: "The only "and" is the one before "weeks sixty-two""

And you do have problems with context. Ultimately you are just refusing to deal with the fact that you are clueless about what you are trying to talk about and cling to any bit of pedantry.

You haven't dealt with the issue. The grammar. How do you attach the clause that follows the "sixty-two weeks" to what came before? Answer: you can't because you've fucked up.

Gleason Archer? You've gotta be kidding me, Bernard. You go to that apologist for your defense. Gleason Archer is who all the nutter fundies run to, when they want to pretend to know something about Hebrew. When are you going to get serious support material for Hebrew? Hendrickson produces a cheap Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon. There are lots of grammars available.

How do you know Archer & others are wrong?

Read Archer.

Counter-evidence please. You can use the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon.

Try this: find me an example in the Hebrew bible for the meaning you desire. Clutching at "heptad" doesn't help you in your backdoor defense for counting "sevens". You actually need "sevens" for your theory, not "heptads".

The word used for "weeks" in Da 9:24-26 is spelled much closer to the Hebrew for "sevens" than for "weeks".

Hebrew morphology is not easy when you are not used to it. That's why I pointed you to the singular form, so that you don't continue with the mistake.

The Hebrew for day is יום, while days is ימים (see eg Gen 21:34). The waw in the singular is dropped in the plural. Same in the feminine, sign is אות, while days is אתות, eg Ps 135:9.

it is clear, given that the singular form in 9:25 is undoubtably "week", there can be no equivocation.

There is no singular form of "week" in Da 9:25.

You're right: it's in 9:27. Try again.

All of your weeks are weeks. The seven weeks are weeks, not seven sevens. The sixty-two weeks are weeks. Your fudging doesn't work. You can't turn the weeks into sevens unless you appeal to apologetic sources who aren't interested in scholarship.

OK, let's talk about your weeks.

Now you're just being perverse...

7 weeks after the decree is 49 days, which timewise would include a group of Jews getting decided and organized to go to Jerusalem from Babylonia (1200 miles about, at least 60 days at 20 miles per day and without stopping for days of rest.). That's quite short for time. And "Daniel" would know that Jeshua arrived in Jerusalem 49 days after the promulgation of the decree!
Next, where would the 62 weeks lead two? How do you fit the 62 weeks in your theory? BTW, the temple was not rebuilt 62 weeks or 69 weeks after the decree, but much later. And after the restoration, it lasted a lot more than 62 or 69 weeks.
Answer my questions.

Ask sensible questions.

And what would happen at 70 weeks after the decree? Oh, that was during Antiochus IV's times, but 70 weeks after Cyrus' decree does not bring you close to 168-164 BC. I am inquiring. Answer me on this. Do not avoid my questions.

You're right off the map here. I'll wait till it wears off.

"sevens" and "weeks" are not the same.

So you are going to abandon your fudging?

Try to understand. I am not abandoning any so-called fudging. The Hebrew for "sevens" is wrongly translated as "weeks" in Da 9:24-26.

Absolutely not. Seventy weeks includes the last week which is in 29:27. 69 of the same thing that is the seventieth. That last is a weeks. They are all weeks. If you insist on continuing this farce of yours you will only make yourself look like a fool.

That one week is the seventieth of the seventy weeks, Bernard. You know, there were 69 weeks before it. There were seventy weeks in the prophecy, not seventy sevens. Bang goes the theory.

No, "Daniel" does not say that.

You haven't done the demonstration from the original text, so you can't say what the writer says.

During the 69 sevens (168-167), the anointed prince comes.

Interesting. Now we've dropped your years scheme...

After the 69 sevens are completed (167-166), he leaves. Then soon after Antiochus IV comes. After a few months he leaves. But then some time after, Jews are massacred in caves. That's when Daniel-2 is written, during the 70 sevens.

Daniel 2 shows no sign of Seleucid ascendancy. It was at a time when there was still a tussle between Ptolemies and Seleucids. Dan 2 was written before Antiochus III won at Raphia in 217.

Oh, so the traditionalist writers of Daniel were not interested in a good high priest (at least as indicated in the books of the Maccabees), but a bad one.

Somehow, despite the murders he ordered to stay in power, our author had interest in Jason, as the legitimate last high priest.

The anointed one in 9:26 got cut off early in Antiochus's reign. Onias III.

1. seven ≠ week, so you can't just count sevens (your lips moved, but nothing came out)

"Sevens" is not equal to "weeks". The Hebrew for "sevens"

What Hebrew word for "sevens"? There isn't such a beast in the text.

(in Da 9:24-26) is not the same than the Hebrew for "weeks". The Hebrew for "sevens" is spelled closer to "seven" than the Hebrew for "week".

Actually, as you don't understand Hebrew/Aramaic morphology, you are talking rot. Can you show me one example elsewhere in the Hebrew bible where you can find seven in the plural?? No? I thought not. The plural of week (שבוע) is weeks (שבעים)

2. the way to connect the clause starting with תשוב to the rest of the verse (the missing "and")

What missing "and"?

The "and" necessary to connect the clause starting with תשוב to the previous clause. That is required. Now because you want to rip "and sixty-two weeks" from what follows, you create the lack of an "and".

There is no connection.

And that is your problem. You've removed the connection by separating "and sixty-two weeks" from what follows. You've been gulled by christian nonsense.

"it will" or "it is" is implied but not written.

Irrelevant. You need to talk about the necessities of the Aramaic, not the English. You are supposed to be analyzing the original language which requires the "and". I guess you're confused here because I have been calling the waw "and" which is how it is translated, but the language needs that waw to connect the sentence together, the waw you've stolen to create your fanciful 69 weeks in order to conflate the anointed prince and the anointed one.

If I understand your position you don't need to defend the christian analysis of the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks. You can have the anointed prince after seven weeks when the restoring and building is done, then 62 weeks later you can have the anointed one. Your weird sevens thingy would still work, but you wouldn't make the mess that the fundies do with the material.

And you have never explained how your sixty-two weeks relate with the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem. I examined two ways and none makes sense.

Oh, I have explained it. But again, seven weeks after the command to restore and rebuild, the anointed prince arrives bringing the restoration and building. Jerusalem will have been restored and built for sixty-two weeks. Then the anointed one is cut off....

Question: what happened 62 weeks before the anointed one was cut off? Answer: Jerusalem was restored and built.

Actually, your understanding about "weeks" cannot fit the historical context involving Jeshua, Onias III, and Antiochus IV.

Umm, why exactly?

3. you cannot say, given (v26) "and after 62 weeks", what happened 62 weeks before.

I do not need to if seven sevens is added up with sixty-two sevens = sixty-nine weeks.

But the writer did not say "after seven weeks and sixty-two weeks an anointed one will be cut off". He specifically said "after 62 weeks", so what happened 62 weeks before? The reason you can't answer is because you've misunderstood the text.

4. your chronology doesn't support Jason or history. It's about two years too short.

Explain why? I think it's right on.

The end time is when the sanctuary is restored (8:14), when judgment is meted out against the little horn (7:26), the end is poured out on the desolator (9:27). The end, going on 8:14 as the indicator, is late 164 when the temple is cleansed and rededicated. All the prophecies were written close enough to that time to be relatively confident that they could retake Jerusalem. That only became evident after the battle of Emmaus, so we are in 165 when the prophecies were considered and there was over a year before the rededication. We see in the changing durations for the end the writers adapting to the changing circumstances, 1150, 1239, 1290, 1335. They could see the progress towards the end and the last provided duration was 96 days more than the 70 weeks end. We are look at a date that was at least 96 days before the rededication, but not before Emmaus, the point that the end could be seen. Granting that the end of the last week should have fallen in 164, that's two years or more after the end date provided by your counting sevens.

[Stephan Huller]

Boarding a plane but how do either of you account for Aquila's reading (from memory) of "ointment" here in v 26?

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Spin,

You know what you know and I know what you know and they are the same.

So do not pretend you have a good knowledge of the Hebrew language and do not try to make points against me on that issue.

Not meaningful questions.

All my questions about how do you fit your 7 weeks, 62 weeks, 69 weeks & 70 weeks got no answer. They are either meaningless or unsensible, according to you. That's a cop-out.
Because you cannot provide an answer how "weeks" (as 7 days units) in Da 9:24-26 relates to Jeshua, the restoration of Jerusalem or/and temple, Onias III & Antiochus IV last years, your theory is bankrupt right there, without going any further.

Hebrew morphology is not easy when you are not used to it. That's why I pointed you to the singular form, so that you don't continue with the mistake.

The Hebrew for day is יום, while days is ימים (see eg Gen 21:34). The waw in the singular is dropped in the plural. Same in the feminine, sign is אות, while days is אתות, eg Ps 135:9.

The Hebrew for your "weeks" in Da 9:24-26 is unique in the whole Hebrew literature. It does not mean either weeks or "sevens" as quantities of seven units. That's a fact.

Daniel 2 shows no sign of Seleucid ascendancy. It was at a time when there was still a tussle between Ptolemies and Seleucids. Dan 2 was written before Antiochus III won at Raphia in 217.

I thought you read my whole webpage on Daniel. I was wrong.
Daniel-2 does not refer to Daniel second chapter, but a second author who wrote a major addition to the book of Daniel (originally written by Daniel-1 some 150 years earlier, as explained in http://historical-jesus.info/daniel.html). So of course there is no sign of Seleucid ascendancy in Da 2.
However, in my comment, I should have said Daniel Part 2, rather than Daniel-2.

The end, going on 8:14 as the indicator, is late 164 when the temple is cleansed and rededicated.

I have reasons (with evidence) to think that verse is from Part 3, written after Part 2 (itself written in 167 BC). This is all explained on my two webpages on Daniel, more so http://historical-jesus.info/danielx.html for Part 3, 4 & 5.

All the prophecies were written close enough to that time to be relatively confident that they could retake Jerusalem.

I do not agree, of course. The main prophecy, about the End, resurrections and Michael's intervention is in Part 2, and that part was written well before the battle of Emmaus.

We see in the changing durations for the end the writers adapting to the changing circumstances, 1150, 1239, 1290, 1335.

I explained these numbers and how do they fit in my two webpages (already indicated on that post).

Something you wrote in an earlier post:

Between Darius the Mede and Alexander the Great there were only four Persian kings for this writer.

Let's look at your reference verse, Da 11:2 (with 11:3 for clarification):
RSV "... Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia; and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them; and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece.
Then a mighty king [Alexander the Great] shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion and do according to his will."
It is obvious the author was mentioning kings before Artaxerxes I only. It was not his intention to enumerate all the Persian kings.
Artaxerxes I fits as the fourth king if Darius the Mede is the same than Cyrus the Great (Daniel-2 tried to equate the two and compensate for the mistake made by Daniel-1) and Bardiya, because he ruled for a few months only, is removed from the list.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

Hi Spin,

You know what you know and I know what you know and they are the same.

So do not pretend you have a good knowledge of the Hebrew language and do not try to make points against me on that issue.

You can say whatever you like. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and it is clear that you are struggling trying to be meaningful regarding the Semitic original. Remember your amusing confusion over "again". I don't talk about myself on internet. I use what I know.

Not meaningful questions.

All my questions about how do you fit your 7 weeks, 62 weeks, 69 weeks & 70 weeks got no answer. They are either meaningless or unsensible, according to you. That's a cop-out.
Because you cannot provide an answer how "weeks" (as 7 days units) in Da 9:24-26 relates to Jeshua, the restoration of Jerusalem or/and temple, Onias III & Antiochus IV last years, your theory is bankrupt right there, without going any further.

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.

Hebrew morphology is not easy when you are not used to it. That's why I pointed you to the singular form, so that you don't continue with the mistake.

The Hebrew for day is יום, while days is ימים (see eg Gen 21:34). The waw in the singular is dropped in the plural. Same in the feminine, sign is אות, while days is אתות, eg Ps 135:9.

The Hebrew for your "weeks" in Da 9:24-26 is unique in the whole Hebrew literature. It does not mean either weeks or "sevens" as quantities of seven units. That's a fact.

This fact thingy is your claim, I gather gained from the apologists, who are arguing for the accuracy of Daniel and who think that Daniel wrote the text in the seventh/sixth centuries.

The plural suffix is masculine rather than feminine. We are dealing with an Aramaic influenced text: half of it was written in Aramaic (chapters 2-7), so we can expect some strangeness in the language morphology. In Alger F. Johns, A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, 1963, p4, we find this comment:

The following vocabulary is a representative... list of common words which are identical to BH in the singular absolute form, and are either identical or virtually identical in their meanings. However, they are by no means identical to BH in the plural, nor necessarily so in the construct form.

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.

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—metaphoric use requires understanding the literal significance. You have merely been played by apologetic christian doctrine, as one would expect from people like Gleason Archer or Zondervan press.

I expect you to duck the issue now and pretend that שבעים has to mean what you want it to mean.

Daniel 2 shows no sign of Seleucid ascendancy. It was at a time when there was still a tussle between Ptolemies and Seleucids. Dan 2 was written before Antiochus III won at Raphia in 217.

I thought you read my whole webpage on Daniel. I was wrong.
Daniel-2 does not refer to Daniel second chapter, but a second author who wrote a major addition to the book of Daniel (originally written by Daniel-1 some 150 years earlier, as explained in http://historical-jesus.info/daniel.html). So of course there is no sign of Seleucid ascendancy in Da 2.
However, in my comment, I should have said Daniel Part 2, rather than Daniel-2.

Thanks for the clarification. Going back to your comment on the issue:

During the 69 sevens (168-167), the anointed prince comes. After the 69 sevens are completed (167-166), he leaves. Then soon after Antiochus IV comes. After a few months he leaves. But then some time after, Jews are massacred in caves. That's when Daniel-2 is written, during the 70 sevens.

The basic dating of when latter Daniel was written seems correct. The writing is towards the end of the last week.

The end, going on 8:14 as the indicator, is late 164 when the temple is cleansed and rededicated.

I have reasons (with evidence) to think that verse is from Part 3, written after Part 2 (itself written in 167 BC). This is all explained on my two webpages on Daniel, more so http://historical-jesus.info/danielx.html for Part 3, 4 & 5.

Sorry, I don't intend to dig in that field again at the moment. I'd rather we beat it out here. I am at present happy with working from a chronology that works backward from the datings of the end. The end of Dan 12 with its 1335 days was written after Dan 9 with its 3½ years, 1239 days, which was written after Dan 8's 1150 days. The foreseeable end was taking a little longer each time.

This doesn't change the fact that 8:14 points to the restoration of the temple, which we know happened not long before the death of Antiochus IV in 164.

All the prophecies were written close enough to that time to be relatively confident that they could retake Jerusalem.

I do not agree, of course. The main prophecy, about the End, resurrections and Michael's intervention is in Part 2, and that part was written well before the battle of Emmaus.

Then you think that the writers of Daniel were simply picking a date by the grace of god?

I don't think the dates were haphazard or pure predictions. They are calculated in those last few hundreds of days before the temple was reclaimed. The end could be seen and that was after Emmaus gave them the hope. It was that hope that the writers were trying to focus so that they could keep up the necessary morale of the fighters to finish the task.

We see in the changing durations for the end the writers adapting to the changing circumstances, 1150, 1239, 1290, 1335.

I explained these numbers and how do they fit in my two webpages (already indicated on that post).

So you want to save your fingers.

Something you wrote in an earlier post:

Between Darius the Mede and Alexander the Great there were only four Persian kings for this writer.

Let's look at your reference verse, Da 11:2 (with 11:3 for clarification):
RSV "... Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia; and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them; and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece.
Then a mighty king [Alexander the Great] shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion and do according to his will."
It is obvious the author was mentioning kings before Artaxerxes I only. It was not his intention to enumerate all the Persian kings.
Artaxerxes I fits as the fourth king if Darius the Mede is the same than Cyrus the Great (Daniel-2 tried to equate the two and compensate for the mistake made by Daniel-1) and Bardiya, because he ruled for a few months only, is removed from the list.

Given that there were three Dariuses, three Artaxerxeses and several others in the Persian dynasty before Alexander tripped along, we clearly have lots more than four. The text indicates that the mentioned Darius was a Mede, so doesn't count. He's just one more indicator of the lack of expectation for the sort of accuracy that fundies want.

(And a note on relying too literally to the translation here: the word "yet" in the text, translated in the RSV as "more", is directly attached to the word "behold", not to the number "three". It has a sentential weight, not adjectival. After this Mede there were yet four kings of Persia before Alexander. There is no implication of Persian kings before these, but that after Darius the Mede and before the mighty king comes along there are three plus one Persian kings still to come.)