Daniel's Seventy Weeks

[efta777]

This thread is a continuation of the discussion started here:


http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=152&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

And is a discussion regarding the Seventy weeks of Daniel from Preterist perspective.

[dizzle]

Ekkk! Hey, I really want to get in on the ground floor on this one... can you guys give me a bit to get all the initial projects done in getting this site going, and I will hop right in?

[efta777]

RightIdea, I had the same problem as you at first in trying to make the seventieth week line up with A.D. 70 somehow, but this doesn't change the fact that you're adding a gap where there should be none. but then I came to realize that there is an incredibly straightforward solution, which Dee Dee is very good at explaining, and that is to say that the seventieth week started at Christ's Baptism, then he is cut off (crucified) halfway through.

That's a very short explanation, however. There's obviously more to the issue than that.

[efta777]

Sure Dee Dee, no prob

[bar Jonah]

By all means, explain in some more detail 1) the timing you believe took place, and 2) the scriptural basis for your believing in that timing.

We know from Daniel that the beginnings/endings of the weeks are on Passover, since the temple construction was begun and completed at Passover, and because the Messiah is cut off at the conclusion of 69 weeks, Christ is cut off on Passover as well, which keeps everything consistent.

So how do you believe the 70th week (a period of 7 years) began all the way back at Christ's baptism, yet ended 4 decades later in 70 AD?

[dizzle]

Sure RI... give me some time like I said... and I will get on it. I am sooo sorry not to be able to jump on all these right away. Eeek!!! But soon, my friend, soon. LOL! You love me, admit it. :yipee:

[Solly]

RI: Not to do it all before DD get's her chance, but I know she would not say that the 70th week ran from Christ's baptism until 70ad. A week is a week is a week (of years, anyway). The 70th runs from Christ's baptism to the call of Paul.

DD, if you don't have access to it, then I must remember to dig out John Owen's introductory volumes to his Hebrews commentary, were he deals at length with the 70 weeks; unless someone has the CD and can copy it over (briefly).

[dizzle]

Solly I would love to have that.

[GrayPilgrim]

I have the CD. When I get home this evening, I'll post it, unless soemone gets to it first.

[efta777]

Solly is correct. The destruction of the temple does not necessarily occur WITHIN the seventy weeks. The only things that MUST occur within the 70 weeks are listed in Danel 9:24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to (1) finish transgression, (2) to put an end to sin, (3) to atone for wickedness, (4) to bring in everlasting righteousness, (5) to seal up vision and prophecy and (6) to anoint the most holy.

After the 69 weeks, Christ is prophecied to come (V. 26), then after that (Though we are not told when) Jeruselem is destroyed, though not within the 70 weeks.

Halfway through the 70th week, Christ is crucified (v. 26-27), and as a result of this, Jeruselem is destroyed (the second half of v. 26).

The hardest part for me to be able to understand these verses was to figure out exactly who is being talked about where in verses 26 and 27 of Daniel 9, but once you realize that the subject goes from Christ, then to the later destruction, then back to Christ, it's easier to understand. Dee Dee does a great job of explaining this.

[efta777]

Dee Dee, I'm doing my best to wait for you, but leaving questions out there unanswered is a pet peeve of mine :) sorry... I'll try to slow down.

[GrayPilgrim]

Could you let me know exactly what part of Owen's treatement you are interested in, as it runs for over 20 pages, which is a wee bit over the 12000 character limit ;)

[bar Jonah]

Ok, I understand what you've said so far, Efta, in regards to the timetable, etc.

I have just compared what you described with Daniel 9, and right off the bat, I can see that your interpretation is massively contradictory to scripture. (And please take that as an attack on the idea and not an attack on you. I am not here to call you a heretic or an antichrist, the way I've been called today, elsewhere on thisboard. I'm posting here in love.)

But... I am not going to respond with backing at this point. I think it will be best for DeeDee to first make her case in detail. I want to give y'all the benefit of the doubt, and a full opportunity to present your case before I respond. I look forward to seeing further clarification of the preterist view. :)

[dizzle]

Dear GrayPilgrim.. perhaps you can send me the 20 pages?

[dizzle]

Thank you RightIdea... and Efta did do a good summary, but there are of course details which make it the only (IM could be more HO) viable explanation.... even in a nonpreterist view.

[Lizard]

RightIdea:
Ok, I understand what you've said so far, Efta, in regards to the timetable, etc.

I have just compared what you described with Daniel 9, and right off the bat, I can see that your interpretation is massively contradictory to scripture. (And please take that as an attack on the idea and not an attack on you. I am not here to call you a heretic or an antichrist, the way I've been called today, elsewhere on thisboard. I'm posting here in love.)

But... I am not going to respond with backing at this point. I think it will be best for DeeDee to first make her case in detail. I want to give y'all the benefit of the doubt, and a full opportunity to present your case before I respond. I look forward to seeing further clarification of the preterist view. :)

Good post RightIdea, I think this will be a most informative and enternaining discussion. :thumb:

[Lizard]

RightIdea:
Ok, I understand what you've said so far, Efta, in regards to the timetable, etc.

I have just compared what you described with Daniel 9, and right off the bat, I can see that your interpretation is massively contradictory to scripture. (And please take that as an attack on the idea and not an attack on you. I am not here to call you a heretic or an antichrist, the way I've been called today, elsewhere on thisboard. I'm posting here in love.)

But... I am not going to respond with backing at this point. I think it will be best for DeeDee to first make her case in detail. I want to give y'all the benefit of the doubt, and a full opportunity to present your case before I respond. I look forward to seeing further clarification of the preterist view. :)

Should be an interesting thread :thumb:

[efta777]

I agree, I just kind of gave a very basic, rough outline of what I believe, and honestly I would like to wait for Dee Dee to jump in on this to prevent me from butchering this interpretation. However, if you want to mention exactly what parts of it you have a problem with, maybe Dee Dee would know better what to focus in on in her response

[bar Jonah]

Thanks, but I'll wait for DeeDee's additional commentary. :)

[dizzle]

Cool, this will be first one I concentrate on when I get back to heavy posting.

[Revolg]

Oh I remembered your multi colored posts. Enough to fill in all the visible light of the spectrum.

[dizzle]

Only Jerry got my super-special multi-colored posts. They have the effect of making the recipient call me an idiot by the end, so I use them sparingly.

[bar Jonah]

Any guess when that will be? Not asking you to rush, just curious as to the time frame. Thanks, sis. :)

[dizzle]

Hey RI - no prob.. that is fair... I am thinking this weekend.

[Robyn Banks]

efta777:
After the 69 weeks, Christ is prophecied to come (V. 26), then after that (Though we are not told when) Jeruselem is destroyed, though not within the 70 weeks.
Hmmmm. Daniel refers to Christ? And the book makes so much sense when read in context... :rofl:

Have a look at a chronology of Daniel. Pay particular attention to the detailed events in Ch 11, which correspond with great detail to the events in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires up until Antiochus IV Epiphanes:
http://www.tektonics.com/prophecy/daniel_chronology.html

I've got to ask: why make bible interpretation so hard for yourselves? :argh:

Robyn

[bar Jonah]

Robyn, are you actually saying the "prophecy of weeks" doesn't describe the cutting off of the messiah, etc.? It specifically states exactly what year these events will take place, and it lines up exactly with the year Christ is crucified -- cut off for His people. If it's not referring to Christ, what on earth is it referring to?

[Robyn Banks]

RightIdea:
Robyn, are you actually saying the "prophecy of weeks" doesn't describe the cutting off of the messiah, etc.?
The prophecy of the 70 weeks does describe the cutting off the the messiah (anointed one). You just have to appreciate who the messiah / anointed one is.

Antiochus was the messiah / anointed one.


RightIdea:
It specifically states exactly what year these events will take place, and it lines up exactly with the year Christ is crucified -- cut off for His people. If it's not referring to Christ, what on earth is it referring to?
It does refer to christ: Antiochus the christ.

Daniel specifically refers (with great detail) to the events in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires up until Antiochus IV Epiphanes:
http://www.tektonics.com/prophecy/d...chronology.html

Daniel has nothing to do with Jesus.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[bar Jonah]

Dont' take this personally... but what in the holy name of God are you talking about? What on earth makes you think that some fallen, sinful man is the annointed Christ????? :bonk: :eww: :rant: :hrm: :shrug: :sigh: :o

[Robyn Banks]

RightIdea:
Dont' take this personally... but what in the holy name of God are you talking about?
I am talking about the context of the Book of Daniel, as set out well in this chronology:
http://www.tektonics.com/prophecy/daniel_chronology.html

RightIdea:
What on earth makes you think that some fallen, sinful man is the annointed Christ?????
Antiochus the Christ? Certainly not.

The Old Testament contained no concept of an end-times Christ/Messiah. Daniel is no exception. Nowhere in Daniel is there any reference to the exchatological Messiah.

Instead, the Old Testament only ever refers to a specific king, priest or prophet. Daniel 9 refers to the mashiyach 'anointed one' / 'messiah' / 'christ' / 'king' who was killed in order for Antiochus IV Epiphanes to take the throne. It is referring to Seleucus IV's son - whose death Antiochus IV Epiphanes was implicated in. Antiochus was implicated in the death of Seleucus IV and other rivals to power - the "three earlier horns" which were "plucked up by the roots" of Daniel 7.8.

And so Antiochus IV Epiphanes became the new christ / messiah / king (all these names are interchangeable at the time of Daniel).

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[dizzle]

Dear Robyn:

I have a request. This thread was specifically set up to be an interaction between a dispensational futurist interpretation of Daniel 9 and a preterist one. I know that may not have been clear, thus, my post to clarify. I understand that you are proposing an alternative view, but in order to keep things on track here, I would ask that if you would like to discuss your view (which you are free to do so) that you would start a new thread on the subject.

Thank you!

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
I have a request. This thread was specifically set up to be an interaction between a dispensational futurist interpretation of Daniel 9 and a preterist one.
Sorry - I was unaware.

Here is a better thread - if you wish to discuss the right view of Daniel. :rofl:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=418

Robyn

[dizzle]

Dear Robyn:

I had figured that you were unaware, so I thank you for your consideration. I had seen your other thread already, thank you. I can only handle a few intensive conversations at one time in order to do them justice in addition to my Admin duties. This is one here is one of the ones that I do need to get to first to keep my promise to RightIdea.

[dizzle]

Dear RightIdea:

Okay, knowing where to get started is the hardest part, and keeping within the 12K character rule is the second hardest part.

I have interacted pretty intensively with another Acts 9er on the passage so I think I have a good idea of where you will be coming from. I need to ask if we are in agreement on some things though. First (without considering your view that there was an “interupption” in the plan of God) do you agree that Jesus’ word in the Olivet Discourse were intended to clearly commubnicate to His audience that the fulfillment of these things was expected to happen in the first century? I know tha tyou do not believe that they were, which I do, but was it what was expected? My last opponent answered that affirmatively, and I just wanted to make sure that you would as well.

So to start off somewhat briefly and provide needed detail as we progress, here is my chronology of the 70 weeks… To start… here are the “goals” of the 70 weeks, i.e. the objectives to be accomplished within that time frame:
Daniel 9:24 – “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.”

The first thing we notice here is that nowhere is the destruction of the Temple mentioned as one of the goals of the 70 weeks, it simply isn’t there However, the things that are mentioned as the goals were accomplished within the specified time frame all in the first century, in and surrounding Christ’s ministry.

Thus in my view, the 69th week ends with Christ’s baptism (the anointing of the Most Holy). The 70th week immediately followed without delay. Christ’s ministry lasted three and one-half years, and then He was cut off in the midst of the 70th week. The completion of the remaining three and one-half years of the 70th week after the Cross marked the end of the specific focus of the Gospel preaching to ethnic Israel (“You shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samarian and to the end of the earth.” Acts 1:8). The focus from that point on became the Gentiles and the opening of the Kingdom to them en masse. Acts records this progression. The opening chapters focus on Jerusalem, rippling out into Judea, and then Samaria, and then out into Gentiles with the conversion and ministry of Paul.

[bar Jonah]

DeeDee, yes, I wholeheartedly accept your statement about the Olivet Discourse. :cheers:

Is that everything you wished to put forth? I'm guessing you have more, but just making sure, so I don't sit waiting, causing both of us to twiddle our thumbs for a week. ;) Let me know when you have wrapped up your entire presentation of the explanation and defense (apology?) of Praeterism.

Thanks! :)

[dizzle]

Actually, RightIdea if I put forward everything, it would be massive, so I was hoping we would do it chunks. So, I would like for you to respond to what I have put forth so far if that is okay.

[bar Jonah]

I will, but probably late tonight or tomorrow, as I must work this afternoon. :) I've already observed a logical fallacy in your above statement, so my thoughts are already churning. More later, sis. :)

[Hitch]

Gentry devotes 25 pages to Dan in Perlious Times for a preterist view.

Hitch

[Lizard]

RightIdea:
I will, but probably late tonight or tomorrow, as I must work this afternoon. :) I've already observed a logical fallacy in your above statement, so my thoughts are already churning. More later, sis. :)

Bump.

I want to hear this.

[dizzle]

Me too, though I know what he is alluding to, however, it is only a fallacy if an entire argument rests on a certain observation. It does not. It is merely a supporting observation... but I will let RightIdea make his own arguments. :)

[bar Jonah]

Ack, sorry about the delay. I have been so caught up in participating in so many threads, everytime I sit down, I try to deal with the other discussions which I know I can either peek in and leave without comment, or can make a quick response, hopefully leaving this thread for last. And then I run out of time, and I don't want to just make a weak or hasty effort to respond.

But it's just excuses, excuses. I need to change the way I prioritize my involvment in many threads here. I'm not used to participating in a board like this, but I'll pick it up; don't worry. ;)

Now, to the issue at hand.

You are beginning with faulty logic when you discuss the "goals" of the 70th week. My goal for this week is to meet my scholastic requirements within the parameters of the instructions of various syllabi. Now, guess what? I am going to be posting a research questionnaire here, and at two other online Christian message boards regarding my ministry's website. (DeeDee, you'll get a message from me today about that.) This exact event isn't outlined in my above goals... but it is part of what I am going to do in order to meet my goals. Just because it isn't listed in my goals doesn't mean I can do this next month. In fact, I need to accomplish this by Friday, hopefully.

Then, hypothetically, I may say, "I'm going to attend class on Monday. Then I am going to attend class on Wednesday. Then I am going to e-mail DeeDee. Then I am going to create a questionnaire. Then I am going to put the questionairre on the message board by Friday evening, or somehow make it available to everyone at TW by that time."

Now... looking at what I just said in quotes, can you reasonably interpret it in such a way that you believe I am going to e-mail DeeDee next week? Honestly, think about it, simply in terms of this hypothetical situation. Can it be interpreted as even possibly meaning that?

Of course not. Because I say "I am going to e-mail DeeDee. THEN I am going to" do these other things. After. And one of those things that I THEN do is put this questionnaire on the board by Friday evening. Before next week.

Following me? (I'm not trying to be patronizing, seriously. I am trying only to be extremely careful and absolutely clear in my wording.

Now, let's look at Daniel's prophecy:

Daniel 9:24-27
24 Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.

25 "Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
The street shall be built again, and the wall,
Even in troublesome times.

26 "And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

27 THEN he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; [The final week!]
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate."

The order of events here cannot possibly be any plainer. X, then Y, then Z, with sub-events under those.

Under X, there is X1 and X2.
Under Y, there is Y1 and Y2 and Y3 and Y4.
Under Z, there is Z1 and Z2 and Z3.

It makes absolutely no sense to claim that Y2 happens after Z3, long after Z is finished altogether. Daniel is blatantly giving us a chronology of events. Why on earth would he take an event that happens almost four "weeks" after the "final week" and put it in verse 26, before the events of verse 27, which describe the final week?

The United States had the Revolutionary War, soon followed by the War of 1812. Slavery became a bigger issue, along with serious economic issues between the North and South. Hawaii and Alaska became the 49th and 50th states. In the 1860s, America experienced the Civil War.

Anyone reading the previous paragraph is obviously going to conclude that the author foolishly believes Alaska and Hawaii became states before the Civil War. Why? Because there is obviously a chronological order of events being described.

"But hey, Hawaii and Alaska DID become states! It just happened decades later."

Hardly a reasonable explanation for why that sentence is in the middle of the 18th century. But that's exactly what you're claiming, DeeDee. Daniel is taking some much later event and just dropping it right in the middle of the 70 weeks prophecy. That's about as logical as my description of American history, above.

I look forward to your response.

[bar Jonah]

Dee Dee Warren:
Me too, though I know what he is alluding to, however, it is only a fallacy if an entire argument rests on a certain observation.
This is not always true. In this case, if your chronology of Daniel's prophecy doesn't hold up, the whole house of cards comes down. Wouldn't you concede that?

[dizzle]

Dear RightIdea:

I will be back to you soon. And you did not point out what I thought you would... ahh, good thing I did not reveal it to you. LOL.... and to your last question yes and no. Daniel 70 weeks are notoriously difficult as conceded by a great majority of exegetes, and that is from all views. There is no view of it that is without problems, and I am going to be showing you the problems with yours in painfully great detail. (eek, boy can I be obnoxious huh? - LOLOLOLOL - I love you man!) So, then the question becomes what view has the most easily resolvable problems and fits in the tightest with the complete revelation (i.e. collating and merging with the NT texts). I am starting with the 70 weeks because it just kind of fell in our laps this way, but normally I would start in the Discourse which I will go to during our conversation. I am very much looking forward to this. Slap me if I get out of line. :kiss:

[bar Jonah]

We can discuss my eschatological views if you wish. But I was under the impression this discussion was a defense of your views, and to go into mine here would be evading the issue on your part, wouldn't it? Let's keep this thread on a defense of Preterism, particularly (though not necessarily 100% exclusively) around Daniel's prophecy of weeks. We'll discuss my eschatology at another time. :)

[dizzle]

I actually would like it to be an interaction between us on our views. And no, bringing in yours as a point of reference would not be evading the issue whatsoever, but rather would is critical since you are not looking at the issue as an undecided or unbiased observer, but as a person with a particular firm viewpoint of your own. In defendng mine, I must necessarily defeat yours. I can assure you that I will evade nothing. I pride myself on lack of evasion. And in fact, in your response to my first post, you did bring up what you felt was the proper interpretation, ie. your view. To respond I must interact with what you presented, and to respond to me further, where else are you going to operate from but from the foundation of your own view?

[bar Jonah]

I agree, my view or interpretation is relevant here, but only in regards to how I interpret Daniel's prophecy. Not in regards to my views on the future Tribulation event. If we stop talking about your defense of Preterism vis a vis Daniel's prophecy and start talking about my pre-mill views, that would obviously be evading the issue. :)

[dizzle]

Let's see how it goes. I am sure if I am evasive you will call me on it. But since we both think Daniel speaks about the Tribulation, obviously the Tribulation is relevant which then leads to..... All of these ideas are inter-related. It is because preterism is the only system that makes a coherent package out of the whole is what makes it persuasive.... but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's get started and see how it goes.

[dizzle]

Dear RightIdea:

Firstly, I had made a point that the destruction of the Temple and the city were not mentioned as being one of the goals of the 70 weeks to which you basically responded that if said destruction were part of the means of obtaining the specifically stated goals then it would be subsumed under the stated goals and implicitly included. And I would agree with you. My entire case is not based upon whether or not it is mentioned. But you (just looking at this one verse in isolation for now – verse 24) should also be able to reasonably agree that it is also possible that the destruction of the city and Temple are not mentioned because they do not fall within the 70 weeks. The fact is that you must argue they are implicitly included (and I am not saying that is unreasonable in isolation) and I am arguing that they are explicitly not specifically mentioned. However, as I will bring up later as our talk progresses, that if my overall interpretation is correct, then said destruction is implicitly mentioned as being outside of the 70 weeks in the phrase “sealing up of sins.”

You next to move to an analogy of a narrative of you doing something, then something else, then something else, etc to demonstrate strict chronology. I disagree with your imposition of a particular narrative style upon an ancient text that is not written in that fashion, and is in fact written using well-known Hebrew parallelism and couplets which often defy strict chronology, but even using your analogy, it would produce ridiculous results for your own view. Let me demonstrate using your own citation above…

26 "And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

27 THEN he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; [/][The final week!] But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate."[/I]

If you were correct in your insistence that these verses must follow strict chronological arrangement rather than thematic arrangement, you must then posit that the city and the Temple are also outside of the 70 weeks as well and not part of the Great Tribulation. Why? Well look at this text very carefully RI using your own presuppositions here …….

1. The Messiah is killed THEN
2. The city and sanctuary are destroyed THEN
3. The 70th week starts

Do you see the problem? The Acts 9 view holds that the killing of the Messiah marks the end (I will defeat that presently) of the 69th week and that the 70th week followed immediately afterward but was interrupted (a gap by any other name is still a gap) one year later. That would not jive with your insistence on strict chronological progression for the 70th week would not then have been able to be started until AFTER the city and Temple were destroyed. No one believes that. Your point on that issue has failed.

Additionally, let’s look at where the text does give specifically chronological indicators and we will see that these also support my position…..

Daniel 9:26 – And AFTER the 62 weeks Messiah shall be cut off….”

Did you catch that? Christ was not to be killed in the last moments of the 69th week, but AFTER the 69th week. Well then the only week remaining is the 70th week during which in fact Christ was cut off. When? In the middle of the week as verse 27 tells us….

But in the middle of the week, he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering….

This is made obvious when the literary structure in Hebraic parallelism of this passage is examined. Observe:

Verse 9:26 –And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;

And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.

Verse 9:27 – Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.

And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.

The red colored text is parallel as is the blue and they repeat each other. This is not an unusual Hebrew literary device. This places the timing of the cutting off in the midst of the 70th week. Also notice in the concluding words of verse 26 and 27 in parallel, that it is only the determination of the desolations that is said to be determined in the 70th week itself. The effecting of those desolations could take place any time thereafter.

In summary, the verses cannot be strictly chronological as you have argued, and where the chronology is explicit, it supports my view that Christ was cut off in the midst of the 70th week, which then of course leads to the downfall of the theory that the 70th week of Daniel is the Great Tribulation. It is not. Of course I have more.. but I do not want this conversation to get unwieldy so I look forward to your response to this information thus far.

[dizzle]

Dear RightIdea:

Any idea of when we will be getting back to this?

[efta777]

DeeDee,
Just out of curiosity, do you know of any other specific Biblical uses of this Hebraic Parallelism?

[dizzle]

Off the top of my head.. I cannot give you a specific example.. let me think on it and get back with you. I know that the proverbial literature is loaded with it. Gentry lists his scholarly sources for that finding in He Shall Have Dominion and also in Perilous Times which I am sure list other examples. I do know that Hebraic parallelism is not a controversial or rare literary structure. Gray Pilgrim would probably be able to state some on the spot. Let me see what I can dig up in the meantime...

[efta777]

Thanks

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

Greetings once again in the holy name!

I took about a month off from any consideration of eschatology, like I planned, and then hit the books again. :read: Sorry, not a postmillennialist yet, my friend. Too many problems. (Certainly not a dispensationalist or a full preterist, either, if that makes you feel any better.)

Anyway, I was casually cruising the web recently and stumbled upon this little site, figured out that you were in some way in charge of it, and began to browse. Since I am at present concentrating somewhat on Daniel and related texts I decided to give this thread a whirl.

At this point Daniel 9:24-27 is pretty much an enigma, but I find it interesting that at one of its seemingly clearest points you make an exegetical decision that cuts against the usual Hebrew idiom. You write:

Additionally, let’s look at where the text does give specifically chronological indicators and we will see that these also support my position…..

Daniel 9:26 – And AFTER the 62 weeks Messiah shall be cut off….”

Did you catch that? Christ was not to be killed in the last moments of the 69th week, but AFTER the 69th week. Well then the only week remaining is the 70th week....

A phrase such as "after ten days" means "on (during) the tenth day" in Hebrew, not "after the tenth day has already ended." Yet here you insist that "after sixty-two sevens" actually means "on the sixty-third seven" or "after sixty-two sevens have completely ended." Why?

Yours in him.

Etcetera.

[dizzle]

Dear Etcetera:

Hey there friend, it is great to see you!!!

I have a much fuller response planned, but I need some futher information from you first.... and that is...

A phrase such as "after ten days" means "on (during) the tenth day" in Hebrew, not "after the tenth day has already ended."

I can exegetically show in the passage in Daniel why this (it really meanin AFTER) must be so, but I would first require that you prove your above statement. It is worded as an absolute and no Scriptural examples are cited in support. I actually have done a study of the use of "after" in timing references in the OT, and do respectfully say that such a blanket assertion seems quite unwarranted, though I would not deny that it probably can mean that (though I can demonstrate why it certainly does not mean that in this passage).

I await your further information before proceeding fuller.

And the not a "full preterist" is good news indeed.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

Here is what I had in mind:

Mark 8:31: And he began to teach them that the son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders adn the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Matthew 20:19: ...and on the third day he will be raised.

So "after three days" equals "on the third day" in the gospels. And what about the Hebrew scriptures?

2 Chronicles 10:5: And he said to them: "Return to me again after ['achar] three days."

2 Chronicles 10:12: So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day as the king had directed, saying: "Return to me on the third day."

The chronicler leaves no doubt that "after three days" (verse 5) is the same as "on the third day" (verse 12). So synonymous are they that the latter replaces the former when the king's words are repeated.

I actually have done a study of the use of "after" in timing references in the OT, and do respectfully say that such a blanket assertion seems quite unwarranted....

Then I look forward to your counter-examples. Where in the Old Testament does "after three days" unambiguously mean "on the fourth day or thereafter?"

His praise be sung on high.

Etcetera.

[dizzle]

Dear Etcetara:

I was aware of the example in the Gospels, but again we are dealing with Hebrew phrases so I do not place much weight there, but have already conceded the idiom that the phrase "after" can mean that. But in response to my request for proof of such a blanket statement that you made you gave me one OT example, and then seem to imply that this one example then creates a strong presumption in your favor that I must refute. One example cannot overturn with a strong presumption that "after" almost always in the OT means sequentially "after." I will of course provide some specific examples, and will exegete further why it must mean "after" in this text. I do ask for some time as I have some other substantive debate responses that I promised earlier.. until then.. peace.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

I was aware of the example in the Gospels, but again we are dealing with Hebrew phrases so I do not place much weight there....

Hmmm. Why not? Jesus spoke a Semitic tongue, and the Aramaisms (or even Hebraisms) very frequently stick out in the Greek translations. Is it your position that the equating of "after three days" with "on the third day" was the work of those who put Jesus' words in Greek, and not Jesus himself? That would surprise me.

But in response to my request for proof of such a blanket statement that you made you gave me one OT example, and then seem to imply that this one example then creates a strong presumption in your favor that I must refute.

I apologize for my blanket statement. What I should have written was that the only meaning of the Hebrew idiom "after X periods of time" of which I am currently aware is "on (during) the X period."

Surely you are aware that the majority of such timing statements in any literature will be utterly ambiguous. The bare statement that so-and-so did something after three days does not prove the matter either way. We are looking for the relatively rarer occasion when such a phrase is explained for us in a way that lets us understand exactly on which day (the third or the fourth or later) the action was undertaken. The example which I provided, with its innocent presumption of equivalence, is enough to get the ball rolling. Most of the other O. T. examples are based on the principle of the onah laid down in the Talmud, under which principle our idiom falls. They are not as direct, in other words, as 2 Chronicles 10:5, 12.

One example cannot overturn with a strong presumption that "after" almost always means sequentially "after."

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that 'achar almost always means sequentially after, and one counter-example does not overturn that predominance of meaning. (Is that what you meant?)

We are still discussing idioms, right? Showing, for example, that one event came after another has nothing to do with that same word being used in an accepted idiom, even if the word ended up having the exact opposite meaning. The question here is whether the expression "after X periods of time," where X is a cardinal number, is equivalent to "on (during) the X period" or is equivalent to "on (during) the X+1 period," where X is an ordinal number. At present I know of no unambiguous O. T. examples of the latter. That may simply be my ignorance, and, if so, I will gladly accept my verdict. Just looking for an Ariadne's thread through Daniel, like everyone else.

Another point, though I am certain that you are aware of it: Technically, if we ignore idiom, "after the third day" could just as easily turn out to be "on the hundredth day" as "on the fourth," since one hundred and four alike come sequentially after three.

...but have already conceded the idiom that the phrase "after" can mean that.

What you conceded was that it can probably mean that:

I would not deny that it probably can mean that....

We know from 2 Chronicles 10:5, 12 that it can definitely, not probably, have that meaning. Whether that potential ("can") is realized in Daniel 9:26 is the question at hand, and the first step is to show the potential of the alternative meaning ("after" meaning "on the next"). In the post of yours that originally inspired my response you did not openly recognize even that much:

Christ was not to be killed in the last moments of the 69th week, but AFTER the 69th week.

This is an unnuanced statement that does not take into account even the potential of "after sixty-two weeks" meaning "on (during) the sixty-second week." Your statement argues that, simply because the word "after" is employed, "Christ was not to be killed" during the sixty-second week.

Well then the only week remaining is the 70th week during which in fact Christ was cut off....

Or any of the weeks of time that sequentially follow the seventieth, right? You place the destruction of Jerusalem, after all, after the seventy sevens. The messiah appears sometime around (the end of?) the sixty-second week, and then is cut off some unspecified (but sequentially later!) span of time afterward. Unless you are arguing that "after" must idiomatically mean "on the next."

I do ask for some time as I have some other substantive debate responses that I promised earlier....

Certainly. Take your time. On your postmillennial understanding we may have almost all the time in the world (or is that age?).

:thumb:

Till then.

Etcetera.

[dizzle]

Dear Etcetera:

I will certainly get back to you soon, and I will not hopefully need to take as long as a postmill end of the age. LOLOL.. thank you for your challenging post, it is put into the queque....

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

Well, I fully intended to wait for your reply before going on into the material on periods of time, but this statement of yours...:

...and will exegete further why it must mean "after" in this text.

...gave me pause. I am of the opinion that a nuanced reading of the text comes before exegesis (and is its very basis), and I therefore probably ought to present the bulk of my understanding on the matter before we get into the details of why "after" must mean "sequentially following the termination of the mentioned period" in Daniel 9:26. You may be right. You may have the perfect defense of that reading. But I wish to see whether, when we get to that reading, we are arguing with or against the flow of the rest of the literature. Are we following the standard idiom, or are we arguing for a solecism?

First, a note on the nature of idioms. When a captain at sea commands his crew to turn to port, he does not mean to turn the ship in the direction of the ship's port of origin, or toward its port of destination, or toward the nearest port, or toward any port at all. He means to turn left. And all the instances of that word "port" used to denote a docking-place in the extant literature would not (or at least should not!) change your mind about that idiom. Those instances are irrelevant.

With that caveat in mind, here is the scoop on why I think at this point that "after seventy-two sevens" should probably be translated "during the seventy-second seven" in our text:

1. From the Talmud:

Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbath 9.3: A day and a night are a period [of time], and the portion of a period is as the whole of it.

Nota bene: This is not my own hypothesis to explain a set of data. It is the rabbinical explanation of the idiomatic chronological phenomena presented by the Hebrew scriptures. (I am told that this principle of periods is repeated in various parts of the rabbinical literature, but I myself have not looked those other references up.) One day consists of a daytime and a nighttime, but even a part of one day counts as a whole day for the purposes of the idiom.

2. The beauty of this principle is how nicely it explains certain scriptural data:

Genesis 17:12: And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations....

Leviticus 12:3: And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

In our usage, an infant is not eight days old until he is actually into the ninth day. Not so the ancient Hebrew idiom. An infant is eight days old if he is into his eighth day. The mere part of the last day counts as a whole day. The portion of a period is as the whole of it.

Gen 42.17-18, 25-26: And he put them all in custody for three days.... On the third day, Joseph said to them: “Do this and you will live, for I fear God....” Then Joseph gave orders... to give them provisions for the journey.... So they... departed from there.

The custody did not actually last three whole days if Joseph released his brothers on the third day. Rather, their custody lasted as follows: At least one part of the first day, the entire second day, and part of the third day. The portion of a period is as the whole of it.

1 Kings 20.29: For seven days they camped opposite each other, and on the seventh day the battle was joined.

Presuming that the period of encampment is what leads up to the battle, the encampment did not last seven whole days, for the battle takes place on the seventh, not the eighth. The fraction of the last day counts as a whole day. The portion of a period is as the whole of it.

Esther 4.16: [Esther said:] “Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And, if I perish, I perish.”

Esther 5.1: On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king’s hall.

The fast did not last three whole twenty-four hour periods if Esther waits till it is done before going to the king, yet appears before him on the third day. Only a fraction of the last day is represented. The portion of a period is as the whole of it.

3. The apostolic writings, extant in Greek, reflect the same Semitic idiom, undoubtedly reflecting Jesus’ original Aramaic or Hebrew:

Mark 8:31: ...and after three days rise again.

Matthew 20:19: ...and on the third day be raised up.

Matt 27.63: They said: “Sir, we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said: ‘After three days I will rise again.’ So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day.”

And it is at this point that we get into that expression “after X periods of time.” The principle of periods explains perfectly how it is that "after three days" can equal "on the third day," an equivalence that is completely out of place in standard idiomatic English. The expression "after X days" recognizes that the fractional part of the final day that has passed counts as a whole day, which is why the chronicler can so casually write:

2 Chronicles 10:5: And he said to them: “Return to me again after three days.”

2 Chronicles 10:12: So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day as the king had directed, saying: “Return to me on the third day.”

The expression "on the X day" recognizes that, so long as that final day is not completely over, one is still within a span of time that could count as part of day X; it recognizes, in other words, that no part of day X+1 has yet been entered. As soon as the last few seconds of, say, the third twenty-four hour day have ticked away, the slender portion of the fourth day that now passes counts as the entire fourth day, and the expression should change to "after four days" or "on the fourth day." To retain the expression "after three days" to mean "on the fourth day" (or the fifth, for that matter, or so on) is to ignore the principle of periods and to flirt with gross inaccuracy, granted the standard idiom. My question to you, then, is this: Can we do that? Can we ignore the principle of periods in our text? What evidence have we that a different idiom, one that corresponds more closely with our modern English usage, was available to the biblical authors? Such evidence may exist in spades, but I myself have not seen it, and patiently wait for you to show it to me (though in the meantime I am searching).

4. So, when we turn to our passage...:

Daniel 9:26: And after sixty-two sevens the messiah will be cut off....

...it just seems that if the sixty-two sevens are completely over, and we have actually entered the sixty-third seven (and even, as your hypothesis asserts, arrived at its midpoint), the text ought to have read "after sixty-three sevens" or "during the sixty-third seven." Unless we are for some reason ignoring the principle of periods: The portion of the period (some three years and a half) is as the whole of it.

At any rate, I look forward to your response, and simply wished to save you the effort of potentially offering evidence that is not directly related to the point that I am making.

Cheers. :cheers:

Etcetera.

[dizzle]

Thank you Etcetera, the more information on where you are coming from the better. I do have this on my list, I assure you.

[Hitch]

Taken from an antiSRB site:



Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

"Prince" or "prince" - that is the question!

This very short article is geared towards anyone who is of any variety of KJV-only belief. At this site, we use the KJV primarily, but we recognize that it is the underlying Greek text that is critical. We soundly reject the Alexandrian Text favored by men such as Westcott, Hort, and Scofield.

If you look up the passages above in the 1611 edition of the KJV, you will probably not notice much of a difference. If you look very carefully though, you will discover that the word "prince" in verse 26 is "Prince" in the original KJV. Apparently, the translators recognized that the Prince of verse 26 was the same Prince of verse 25, just as the Messiah of verse 26 was the same Messiah of verse 25. Did they err?

If indeed, as we believe, the Prince of Daniel 9:26 was not a future antichrist, but the Messiah, then the belief in a future 70th week of Daniel is thrown out the window.

It is apparent that the translators of the 1611 edition of the KJV believed they accurately translated Daniel 9:26.

A simple question remains then. If you believe that the "Prince" of Daniel 9:26 is the antichrist, then you obviously disagree with the 1611 KJV.

But if you say you use the 1611 KJV, don't you then realize that the 70th week is not future? Don't you now realize that the "Prince" of Daniel 9:26 must be Jesus Christ? Or was this just one of those "typographical" errors?

We ask the 1611 KJV folks that if they indeed believe the 1611 is without significant error (or as some say, totally without error) then they would renounce the belief that the "Prince" of Daniel 9:26 is the antichrist. Premillennial dispensationalism is wounded terribly by... the 1611 KJV. And along with it, the belief in a "pretrib rapture" is almost totally undermined. It is sustained in our opinion only by its popularity.

[bar Jonah]

DeeDee (and others)... I apologize for having been mostly unable to post lately. School, work, ministry and church have had me mostly swamped. I fully intend to continue discussion on this topic, which I personally find fascinating, despite my otherwise secondary interest in general eschatology.

Although I won't respond immediately, I will say I am intrigued by Etcetera's new information. I am going to run this by a Messianic Jewish friend of mine who speaks and reads Hebrew before getting back to y'all. But I must say, this grammatical info certainly clarifies this passage significantly! In fact, if Etcetera is correct, I believe this obviously demolishes the preterist interpretation of Daniel 9. (Or would you disagree, DeeDee? And if so, why not?)

Hitch, I am one of the last people you will ever see defending the KJV. Although it was translated from a more conservative perspective (unlike the NIV, etc.), it contained many technical errors. My ministry teaches people to refute those who claim "original KJV only."

My last word on this subject for tonight, for everyone, is that as a result of this thread, I have come into a great deal of information and perspectives regarding Daniel 9, and I am absorbing it, comparing various bits of information, and reshaping my own beliefs about what this passage means. In other words, at least some of my original statements regarding the passage may be corrected by forthcoming posts. I may go back on some things I have already said. But at the same time, I continue to see more and more evidence against the preterist view, not for it. Still, I am open to correction.

In Christ as always...

[dizzle]

In fact, if Etcetera is correct, I believe this obviously demolishes the preterist interpretation of Daniel 9. (Or would you disagree, DeeDee? And if so, why not?)


I will be addressing this indepth in my response.. which like you, due to time considerations and other issues, has been delayed. But I am going to be working on it.

[Etcetera]

RightIdea:

Greetings in the grace and fellowship of our Lord.

In fact, if Etcetera is correct, I believe this obviously demolishes the preterist interpretation of Daniel 9.

I may well be mistaken in this in the long run, but I do think that Dee Dee's bold assumption without argument that the idiom in question must mean in Hebrew what it means in English was unnecessary.

Nevertheless, even if I am correct, I do not think that this observation necessarily negates the preterist interpretation. There are twists and turns in this passage that I have not yet seen any side come completely to grips with.

Peace.

Etcetera.

[dizzle]

Dear Etcetera... I am coming up with more interesting stuff my friend. Do I have your curiousity piqued? I am sorry that I am so slow going... there has been administrative stuff that has kept me busy.

[bar Jonah]

02-21-2003 @ 08:13 PM
Etcetera:
I may well be mistaken in this in the long run, but I do think that Dee Dee's bold assumption without argument that the idiom in question must mean in Hebrew what it means in English was unnecessary.

Nevertheless, even if I am correct, I do not think that this observation necessarily negates the preterist interpretation. There are twists and turns in this passage that I have not yet seen any side come completely to grips with.

Peace.

Etcetera.
I ran what you said by my friend Jeff, who works in the Messianic Jewish organization with which I am somewhat affiliated. As I said before, having lived in Israel, he speaks Hebrew, and he also reads biblical Hebrew. He confirmed what you said, agreed, and found the implications regarding Daniel's prophecy to be intriguing, needless to say.

What this means, DeeDee, is that the idiomatic meaning of these verses unquestionably indicate that the Messiah was definitely cut off some time in the 69th week, and definitely not in the 70th week. It wasn't even necessarily at the end of the 69th week, either. It might have been any time during the 69th week, including right at the very beginning of it. Literally on the first or second day, theoretically, as far as the idiomatic grammar here is concerned. Could have been at the beginning, the middle, or the end. But one thing is absolutely sure -- the Messiah was NOT cut off in the 70th week.

I have more to say, consisting of a new and hitherto unmentioned interpretation of these scriptures, but I will wait before posting them. I think you may find them very intriguing. They explain the apparent dichotomy between what I just said and the admittedly intriguing claims about the verse that talks about ending the sacrifice in the middle of the week...

[dizzle]

Dear RightIdea:

What this means, DeeDee, is that the idiomatic meaning of these verses unquestionably indicate that the Messiah was definitely cut off some time in the 69th week, and definitely not in the 70th week. It wasn't even necessarily at the end of the 69th week, either. It might have been any time during the 69th week, including right at the very beginning of it. Literally on the first or second day, theoretically, as far as the idiomatic grammar here is concerned. Could have been at the beginning, the middle, or the end. But one thing is absolutely sure -- the Messiah was NOT cut off in the 70th week.

Actually RightIdea I am in the middle right now of writing my proof proving otherwise. The end results in short, though, and I will provide my proofs, is that it is possible idiomatically that the phrase can mean that... dogmatism such as stated in this paragraph is unjustified. And the prior dogmatism on my side on that one word alone (without the context) is also unjustifed as rightfully pointed out by Etcetera. And I will prove again from the text (and New Testament context) that it is definitely not so in this situation. I would also remind you that this idea does violence to the previously cherished idea of some dispensationalists (you and I have not gotten this far) of calculating down to the day the crucifixtion of Christ which was a major linchpin in the arugment of a different X9er that I debated.

And RightIdea, I say this with all due respect, but I recall in another conversation when Jaltus who is well schooled in Greek disagreed with you on the "two gospels" issues as far the Greek was concerned, you had implied that he had a bias against the idea which predisposed him against what you considered to be the proper rendering. Well is it not possible that there is also a bias here in those who would dogmatically say that there is an idiom that "must" mean that? I am just asking you to take the same position that you did in the other debate... that perhaps some linguists think one thing, but it is still possible to disagree. And I will not merely disagree, I will provide my proofs. And please, please, please, I meant no disrespect here.

I have more to say, consisting of a new and hitherto unmentioned interpretation of these scriptures, but I will wait before posting them. I think you may find them very intriguing. They explain the apparent dichotomy between what I just said and the admittedly intriguing claims about the verse that talks about ending the sacrifice in the middle of the week...

Now that I do look forward to, especially since I do not think you can touch your prior mentioned chronology without devastating implications for other portions of the X9 system.

[bar Jonah]

02-22-2003 @ 06:18 AM
Dee Dee Warren:
Dear RightIdea:

Actually RightIdea I am in the middle right now of writing my proof proving otherwise. The end results in short, though, and I will provide my proofs, is that it is possible idiomatically that the phrase can mean that... dogmatism such as stated in this paragraph is unjustified. And the prior dogmatism on my side on that one word alone (without the context) is also unjustifed as rightfully pointed out by Etcetera.
Dogmatic thoughts and claims aren't inherently wrong. The absolute and uncompromising claim that Jesus is God, that He rose from the dead... is dogmatic. And I think you'd agree this is not only not bad, but a very very good thing.
02-22-2003 @ 06:18 AM
Dee Dee Warren: And I will prove again from the text (and New Testament context) that it is definitely not so in this situation. I would also remind you that this idea does violence to the previously cherished idea of some dispensationalists (you and I have not gotten this far) of calculating down to the day the crucifixtion of Christ which was a major linchpin in the arugment of a different X9er that I debated.
I don't see how it negatively affects the views of dispensationalists like myself. I didn't say this indicates the timing of Christ's cutting off is different from what we thought. I only said that this passage, by itself, doesn't indicate when in the 69th week that He was cut off. We still know He was cut off on Passover. He was the Passover lamb.
02-22-2003 @ 06:18 AM
Dee Dee Warren:And RightIdea, I say this with all due respect, but I recall in another conversation when Jaltus who is well schooled in Greek disagreed with you on the "two gospels" issues as far the Greek was concerned, you had implied that he had a bias against the idea which predisposed him against what you considered to be the proper rendering. Well is it not possible that there is also a bias here in those who would dogmatically say that there is an idiom that "must" mean that? I am just asking you to take the same position that you did in the other debate... that perhaps some linguists think one thing, but it is still possible to disagree. And I will not merely disagree, I will provide my proofs. And please, please, please, I meant no disrespect here.
No disrespect taken. And I'd like to ease your concerns about presuppositions on my part. I won't make the fallacious claim that I have no presuppositions. Everybody does. Presuppositions are like elbows. Everybody has at at least two of them... and they are usually rough around the edges. :brow: LOL

I believed Jaltus was being intellectually stubborn to the point that he was unwilling to even consider that his presuppositions might be wrong. Although I'm far from perfect, I continually strive to consider that I may be wrong about almost everything I believe (excepting the aforementioned dogma). I have honestly come to this discussion ready to learn that I was wrong and you are right. I truly have. And some things you've said (especially the verses that apparently refer to the final 70th week) have really caused me to reevaluate what I believe about this prophecy, and made me think twice! Of course, you have only my word that this is the case. But the honest truth is that almost everything I have seen (thus far, at least) has only served to persuade me more than ever against the preterist view. Not only that, but my own views on the 70th week have changed as a direct and immediate consequence of this very discussion. It just didn't change toward preterism. :wink:
02-22-2003 @ 06:18 AM
Dee Dee Warren:Now that I do look forward to, especially since I do not think you can touch your prior mentioned chronology without devastating implications for other portions of the X9 system.
I agree, my previously mentioned time table doesn't work. That's what has changed in my views. I will explain it in more detail either later today or possibly tomorrow night or Monday morning. (I work this afternoon until late and will be busy pretty much all day tomorrow.)

And gee, is that a new thing? X9? LOL Sounds pretty cool! :cool:

[dizzle]

Dear RightIdea:

Yeah I saw the X9 thing and thought it was cool. I am glad you like it. I have some further comments on your post, but I will save them so as not to further delay my already delayed response...

Dogmatic thoughts and claims aren't inherently wrong. The absolute and uncompromising claim that Jesus is God, that He rose from the dead... is dogmatic. And I think you'd agree this is not only not bad, but a very very good thing.


Of course not, but the context of my comment was a very bold dogmatism on your part on the word of one (admittedly articular and well-studied) TWeb poster and one person who knows Hebrew. I think that is unwarranted, especially prior to hearing my response. I did find a direct parallel in that other discussion where some TWeb posters (including myself) were denying two gospels, another person fluent in Greek agreed that there were not two gospels, and you rejected such dogmatism. I am only asking you to allow me what you have done. That was my only reason for bringing that up..

[bar Jonah]

I understand. I respectfully disagree with your take on the other thread, but I understand where you're coming from. If I was wrong in that other thread, then I offer an open apology to all involved... but I don't believe I was. (Although I haven't looked at that thread in about a week, so my memory may be fuzzy... and I have been dealing with some very difficult issues in my life lately, and if that colored my posts, I would like to know and clarify things. So if you believe it's worth pursuing and discussing again, give me the link to that thread and I'll go back and reread what was said. I never want to be guilty of what you believe I was apparently guilty of. :)

[dizzle]

Oh no!!! RightIdea, I do not think you are necessarily guilty of anything on that other thread ... I just saw a possible inconsistency between your judgment call on that linguist's opinion, and your dogmatisim here. I was just asking that you allow me to do what you did on that other thread.... obviousy I cannot think it was something you were necessarily "guilty" of, if I am asking for the same right.....

[bar Jonah]

Also, I would like to mention that the other thread's discussion has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Regardless of whether anyone was being dogmatic in the other thread doesn't change the facts presented in this thread.

Is it possible that a particular idiomatic phrase should be interpreted the same way every time it comes up in scripture? If it appears (for example) 20 times, and we see that in 19 of those cases it means the same thing, doesn't that indicate that it's reasonable to assume it should be interpreteted that way the 20th time as well? Hypothetically, of course.

And just to clarify... are you, yourself, prepared to find out that you may have been wrong in your interpretation of this passage, that your time tables have been totally wrong, that this could theoretically refute Preterism itself? This small aspect of my views was refuted by you, and I thank you for that. Correction isn't always to take, but as a general rule, I like being corrected in the long run. It affords me a chance to stop being wrong about something. :)

So, I guess what I'm asking is ... IF it turns out this idiomatic meaning is correct, will you concede that the Messiah was cut off in the 69th week? Just how will that impact your views, IF this claim is true? (A big "if," granted.)

[dizzle]

Dear RightIdea...

I will give my standard answer... and I think you and I are in absolute agreement on this philosophy. I am not married to any secondary doctrinal view. I used to be a stalwart and zealous futurist, just as much so as I am for preterism. A few preterists showed me where I was wrong. I have a proven track record of being able to MAJORLY change my mind when shown to be wrong. I have already examined this assertion about the AFTER and am in the process of (writing) showing that it is not a given in this passage, so to speculate on how if it were, how that would change my views, is somewhat a mute point.

[bar Jonah]

02-22-2003 @ 09:48 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

Oh no!!! RightIdea, I do not think you are necessarily guilty of anything on that other thread ... I just saw a possible inconsistency between your judgment call on that linguist's opinion, and your dogmatisim here. I was just asking that you allow me to do what you did on that other thread.... obviousy I cannot think it was something you were necessarily "guilty" of, if I am asking for the same right.....
To be honest, I don't think I'm being dogmatic here at all.

I don't singlemindedly believe against all other claims that this idiomatic understanding of Hebrew grammar absolutely MUST be true. I have said more than once that it appears be true, and if so, then it appears to singlehandedly refute Preterism. We did say that IF this idiomatic understanding of Hebrew grammar is true, then it appears it is consistent throughout the OT. My compatriot offered a slew of scriptural examples of other passages that also use the same principle. The use of this grammatical idiom appears to be very consistent. So the question is... can you offer any examples from elsewhere in scripture that defy this pattern? (And taking into account the original Hebrew, and not just the English translation, of course?) If you can provide clear examples of where this type of wording was used but it didn't have the same idiotmatic meaning, then that would certainly serve to show that such a reading of Daniel's prophecy cannot be so certainly interpreted. In either way, that is.

[bar Jonah]

02-22-2003 @ 09:53 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

Dear RightIdea...

I will give my standard answer... and I think you and I are in absolute agreement on this philosophy. I am not married to any secondary doctrinal view. I used to be a stalwart and zealous futurist, just as much so as I am for preterism. A few preterists showed me where I was wrong. I have a proven track record of being able to MAJORLY change my mind when shown to be wrong. I have already examined this assertion about the AFTER and am in the process of (writing) showing that it is not a given in this passage, so to speculate on how if it were, how that would change my views, is somewhat a mute point.
Good, that's something we have in common. We have both drastically changed our views since accepting Christ. I used to be vaguely Covenental, myself, and obviously I'm now an X9, 12-out, Open Dispensationalist. A pretty big leap.

[dizzle]

And that is what I am working on..... (the proving of my point on the idiom that is... you snuck in another post ahead of me)

[e4e]

According to my Hebrew dictionary’s grammatical notation the word after is a preposition. As you know a preposition is a word that shows a relationship between a noun or pronoun and some other word or praise or sentence.

There is also a waw conjunction that serves as a link between words, clauses or sentences and and is attached inseparably to the word that follows it. The sentence in verse 26 that contains the word after is rightfully rendered ‘after threescore’. Meaning that what follows threescore is actually after and not during the threescore.

I suspect a straw man being built. It is like, “It depends on what is, is.” Just a phony argument to defend the indefensible.

The author of my source is is a futurest and he does not chalenge the integrity of this passage. If it does damage to your belief system then so be it. Ihave had to eat a lot of crow in my life and probubly will eat a lot more. You can do as I have had to do. Change your mind but not the word. I expect intelectual honesty.

[bar Jonah]

e43, you have looked at the grammar and ignored the idiom.

An idiom is a figure of speech that doesn't literally mean what it says. "Bob is a motormouth," doesn't mean that Bob has mechanical stuff in his oral orifice. Saying that a cop is dirty doesn't mean he needs to take a bath. But if you only look at the vocabulary and grammar involved, you will completely miss the meanings of these phrases, won't you?

The same is at work here. In biblical Hebrew, when a person says there will be six days and then Bob will take a bath, it means he takes the bath on the sixth day. Because what it literally means is that he will take a bath after six days have begun. To a Jew with an OT mindset, one minute of a day counts as the whole day. Etcetera provided considerable scriptural evidence that this is so, not to mention quoting the Talmud, which explains this as well. And that's a non-Christian, Jewish source.

So, yes, to understand the literal meaning of this passage (or typical everyday conversation), you must understand the idioms involved. Otherwise, you'll think people have motors in their mouths and cops need to take baths.

[e4e]

What you are saying is after does not mean after like is doesn't mean is. There is no idiom involved such as you describe. If you are going to play this game then what ever is said is not really said. The scripture becomes all togeathe undependable becacuse the scripture dose not mean what it means nor says what it says. The scripture becomes usless as a dependable source of information.

[bar Jonah]

02-22-2003 @ 10:45 PM
e4e:

What you are saying is after does not mean after like is doesn't mean is. There is no idiom involved such as you describe. If you are going to play this game then what ever is said is not really said. The scripture becomes all togeathe undependable becacuse the scripture dose not mean what it means nor says what it says. The scripture becomes usless as a dependable source of information.
e4e, must I really bring up the almost-cliche comments about Christ being a door and being made out of wood, having hinges?

But God's word says Christ is a door! He must have hinges, a doorknob or some sort of handle...? But no. Obviously, he is not literally a door. And this in no way invalidates the reliability of scripture.

[e4e]

You are comparing apples and oranges. You have no bases for arguement. There is no illushion made to anything. The text is quite clear. No such idiom exist in this text.

[dizzle]

Dear Etcetera:

First some personal stuff if that is okay….. It truly is good to see you. I have always had the utmost respect for you, and your ability always to give me a run for my money.

Sorry, not a postmillennialist yet, my friend.

I will take heart from the insertion of yet, though I would be happy with amill too, a girl can’t be too choosey.

Anyway, I was casually cruising the web recently and stumbled upon this little site, figured out that you were in some way in charge of it….

Looks that bad huh?? LOL!

Certainly. Take your time. On your postmillennial understanding we may have almost all the time in the world (or is that age?).

It’s age. And we have a long, long time.

[dizzle]

Okay now unto the challenge…

At this point Daniel 9:24-27 is pretty much an enigma, but I find it interesting that at one of its seemingly clearest points you make an exegetical decision that cuts against the usual Hebrew idiom…..

A phrase such as "after ten days" means "on (during) the tenth day" in Hebrew, not "after the tenth day has already ended." Yet here you insist that "after sixty-two sevens" actually means "on the sixty-third seven" or "after sixty-two sevens have completely ended." Why?

I asked you for further proof of this statement and one of the examples you brought forth was….

2 Chronicles 10:5: And he said to them: "Return to me again after ['achar] three days."

2 Chronicles 10:12: So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day as the king had directed, saying: "Return to me on the third day."

To which you articulated…

The chronicler leaves no doubt that "after three days" (verse 5) is the same as "on the third day" (verse 12). So synonymous are they that the latter replaces the former when the king's words are repeated.

We know from 2 Chronicles 10:5, 12 that it can definitely, not probably, have that meaning. Whether that potential ("can") is realized in Daniel 9:26 is the question at hand, and the first step is to show the potential of the alternative meaning ("after" meaning "on the next").

On first blush this verse seems persuasive to prove that “after” can mean “on.” And let me right off the bat say that I would not dispute that it can, so I am not arguing against that. That being said, this verse does not help your contention for the Hebrew word for “after” (achar) appears nowhere (that I have found in my sources) in 2 Chronicles 10:5 and is supplied by the translators. The NAS renders it –

Return to me again in three days.

So thus far that I see, there is not pattern here to support your position. Also, I did a search throughout the entire Old Testament and cannot find one example of that exact Hebrew word being used in the manner in which you are saying…
considering this, your position is way more than a bit strong.

Moving on….

You brought up some examples from the Gospels..

Mark 8:31: And he began to teach them that the son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Matthew 20:19: ...and on the third day he will be raised.

concluding…

So "after three days" equals "on the third day" in the gospels.

Yes indeed it does there, and the Greek word for “after” (meta) is the same word in the Septuagint of Daniel 9:26. But this is not the hard and fast idiomatic rule you are making it to be. It simply demonstrates the ancients’ lack of concern for exact precisions in time which makes your rendering possible - not absolute. There are numerous examples in the NT where “meta” means sequentially after in reference to time. However, you may object, that the “idiomatic” use only applies in a specific formulae such as “after X block of time” or “during X block of time” or “on X block of time”… There are few examples to bring forth….

Luke 1:24 – Now after those days his wife Elizabeth conceived…..

The context is clear that “after” means exactly that, and it is used with a block of time, though admittedly not a specific number of days.

But… if you are going to be dogmatic that “after” in such a formula means “on” then you must insist that we also count the day on which the counting starts as Jesus did in His resurrection prediction …. Which brings us more on point to this example…

Matthew 17:1 – Now after six days Jesus took Peter…….

Luke 19:28 – Now it came to pass, about eight days after…..

There is no way to get eight days or seven days if you are going to render “after” to mean “on” and count the day upon which the sequence begins. This is untenable. Also…

Matthew 26:2 – You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.”

Was Jesus simply saying “tomorrow”? If we are going to apply a strict idiomatic formula using the “three days” mentioned above then He must be, but that is prima facie nonsensical. If He was counting the day that He was speaking, then “after” most certainly means “after” – if not, then “after” could mean “on” but we have no way of knowing, and thus there is no hard and fast idiomatic rule, other than the generally recognized maxim that Jews when reckoning time often counted part of a day as a whole day. We run into the same issues in English necessitating the use of qualifiers such as “inclusive of today” etc. This does not prove that “after” does not mean “after” it simply proves that at times it may not.

Surely you are aware that the majority of such timing statements in any literature will be utterly ambiguous. The bare statement that so-and-so did something after three days does not prove the matter either way. We are looking for the relatively rarer occasion when such a phrase is explained for us in a way that lets us understand exactly on which day (the third or the fourth or later) the action was undertaken.
And again because of this agreed upon and inherent ambiguity, just because you can find an example for which you posited, that is not unequivocal proof, it simply raises a possibility. But I remind you, I found not ONE example of your hypothesis, using the very word in question but plenty of example of that word being used for sequential progression of time.

Another point, though I am certain that you are aware of it: Technically, if we ignore idiom, "after the third day" could just as easily turn out to be "on the hundredth day" as "on the fourth," since one hundred and four alike come sequentially after three.

To which I respond.. so what? We use “after” in modern English in such phrases to mean exactly that without having problems. I am sorry but this seems like a red herring, and the context is what determines the range of “after.” We do this almost every day in life. And in the Daniel passage (as I will further demonstrate) the “after” is in fact three and ½ years after.
You took me to task for some dogmatism….

In the post of yours that originally inspired my response you did not openly recognize even that much:

I concede that. I do recognize that the phrase can be mean what you propose, though not to the extreme that you have proposed. However, no dispensational opponent has ever raised this issue with me as far as idiom (though another has disputed that “after” means “after” more generally which I rejected), so this is the first time I have really been issued this challenge.
Future responses will be altered to consider this new information.

You presented a great deal of information on a fraction of a day counting as a whole day to which I have no dispute but do find it somewhat irrelevant here (though it does become very relevant when we start determining when the prophecy began etc).

[dizzle]

Okay now to prove within the text itself that the Messiah is not cut off within the 69th week, but within the 70th. I must reiterate one point that I had previously made to RightIdea as it plays into effect again (with some revision in light of the information garnered above).

Daniel 9:26 – And AFTER the 62 weeks Messiah shall be cut off….”

Did you catch that? Christ was not to be killed in the last moments of the 69th week, but AFTER the 69th week. Now it is possible in theory that the Hebrew idiom there could allow for this event still to happen in 69th week, but the text in its face reading does not say that… it says “after,” and if this correct, then the only week remaining is the 70th week during which in fact Christ was cut off. How does the rest of the text help us determine when He was crucified, and if “after” really means “after”…. Well the rest of the text tells us that Messiah was crucified in the middle of the week as verse 27 tells us….

But in the middle of the week, he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering….

This is made obvious when the literary structure in Hebraic parallelism of this passage is examined. Observe:

Verse 9:26 –And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;

And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.

Verse 9:27 – Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.

And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.

The red colored text is parallel as is the blue and they repeat each other. This is not an unusual Hebrew literary device. This places the timing of the cutting off in the midst of the 70th week. Also notice in the concluding words of verse 26 and 27 in parallel, that it is only the determination of the desolations that is said to be determined in the 70th week itself. The effecting of those desolations could take place any time thereafter.

I can also prove this textually be another route.. let’s examine verse 27 more closely…..

Verse 9:27 – Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.

Whoever this “he” is, he is operative in the 70th week, and in the middle of said week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. This is speaking of Christ’s death on the cross which judicially end the sacrificial system. How do I know this for sure? Well, first of all there is the parallel structure I have already pointed out which pairs up “Messiah shall be cut off” and “he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.” Second, let’s take a good look at that “he.” Well who is the “he”? – simple rules of grammar inform us. A pronoun will refer back to the last dominant character. Well who was that? Simple, there has only been one dominant character introduced in this whole prophecy… the Messiah! It cannot be “the people,” that is not a “he,” that is a “they.” It cannot be the “prince who is to come” for the noun “prince” is NOT the last dominant figure, it is not a dominant figure at all, but rather is the subject of a prepositional phrase!

On a side note, even if the last dominant figure were the “prince who is to come,” it would not matter since that I believe that ALSO is the Messiah, the ONLY Prince that has been mentioned. The insertion of an anti-christ in this passage is an anti-contextual forced intrusion indeed. So as to further prove Christ’s confirming of the covenant for many (an idiomatic expression in Daniel for Israel)–

Romans 15:8 – Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers.

Christ sealed the confirming, and using the same language as the LXX of Daniel 9 said in Matthew 26:28, “This is My blood of the new covenant, shed for MANY for the remission of sins.” Isaiah also places this at the atonement, “My Servant shall justify many for He shall bear their iniquities.”

So, then the Messiah shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week but in the midst of the week will bring an end to sacrifice and offering….. that is exactly what was accomplished by His being cut off. The two phrases are synonymous and set in Hebrew parallelism within the passage. The timing of the crucifixion is in the middle of the 70th week. It is ironic how your X9 dispensational view converges much more tightly under my interpretation of this passage. Christ came, first, for ethnic Israel….the Gospel (and I maintain there is only one Gospel – but we can do that dance later) was first for the Jews, with a special focus upon them during Christ’s earthly ministry and in His words before His ascension (Acts 1:8)….. With the conversion of Paul, three and one-half years later, the focus changed, the 490 years had run their course.

Now there is a third way that the text informs us that this event is “after” the 69th week. If you notice carefully in the text, there are two Messianic events mentioned and set apart by timing phrases. The first appears here:

9:25 – … until Messiah the Prince there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks….

There is one event that is to happen during the 69th week at any point from beginning to end, the text right now does not say.

9:26 – After the sixty-two weeks, Messiah shall be cut off…

This is the second Messianic event. First there is the Messiah (verse 25) and then the Messiah is cut off. Certainly the way the phrasing appears (and by itself is not utterly conclusive but highly suggestive), the cutting off event is set apart from the “coming” event by the phrase “after” leading support to my view that this happens AFTER the 69th week. The 69th week marked the coming, the 70th week marks the cutting off. This fits in perfectly with what we know of Jesus’ ministry. He was announced as the Messiah at His baptism (which I hold end the 69th week) and cut off three and one-half years later, during that period of special covenantal time for Israel. This makes sense not only of Daniel 9 but of the New Testament record.

[bar Jonah]

02-22-2003 @ 11:47 PM
e4e:

You are comparing apples and oranges. You have no bases for arguement. There is no illushion made to anything. The text is quite clear. No such idiom exist in this text.
If you want to argue that this idiom doesn't apply in the Daniel passage, that's fine, that's what DeeDee is arguing, in fact.
Dee Dee Warren:
On first blush this verse seems persuasive to prove that “after” can mean “on.” And let me right off the bat say that I would not dispute that it can, so I am not arguing against that.
But you are still completely ignoring the considerable scripture Etcetera brought. Dee Dee didn't do this, and in fact she agreed the scripture he brought does show this idiom in use. So please don't make broad claims that "no such idiom exists." If you believe no such idiom exists, then how do you explain the considerable scripture Etcetera provided?
Genesis 17:12: And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations....

Leviticus 12:3: And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Gen 42.17-18, 25-26: And he put them all in custody for three days.... On the third day, Joseph said to them: "Do this and you will live, for I fear God...." Then Joseph gave orders... to give them provisions for the journey.... So they... departed from there.

1 Kings 20.29: For seven days they camped opposite each other, and on the seventh day the battle was joined.

Esther 4.16: [Esther said:] "Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And, if I perish, I perish."

Esther 5.1: On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king’s hall.

Mark 8:31: ...and after three days rise again.

Matthew 20:19: ...and on the third day be raised up.

Matt 27.63: They said: Sir, we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said: ‘After three days I will rise again.’ So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day.

2 Chronicles 10:5: And he said to them: "Return to me again after three days."

2 Chronicles 10:12: So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day as the king had directed, saying: "Return to me on the third day."

[dizzle]

Actually RightIdea in my post I didn't agree with the applicability to our discussion of the OT Scriptures that Etcetera brought up at all. The only example he brought forth that shows the use of such an idiom was in the NT. However, I have no problem conceding that it is possible in a vacuum. However, it is not possible in the Daniel passage for the reasons I explicated.

PS: In the very quote you reproduced by me, I go on to show that the Hebrew word for "after" was not even in the text of Etcetera's primary OT prooftext, at least as far as I can determine. That is pretty damaging.

[Athanasius]

Hi Dee Dee,

I'm not sure what position some of the other contributors hold to, but as someone who leans to the view that there is a "gap" between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks, may I make a few comments, since your statements have implications for that view?

I appreciate your admission that "after" could mean "at the end of" the sixty-ninth week. However, although that would help to bolster the "gap" view, it is not essential to it, because the 70th week does not begin until the covenant is confirmed. It may be that there is an indeterminate period between the end of the sixty-ninth week and the beginning of the seventieth, and that the Messiah is cut off and the city and sanctuary destroyed during that indeterminate period.

I enjoyed reading your last two posts and appreciate the effort that must have gone into them, especially in light of some of the tough challenges presented to you by the other contributors. However, I see some difficulties with the parallelism that you are suggesting, lending support to the alternative idea that verses 26 and 27 describe successive events. Please take just a few minutes to consider them:

1) The prince of verse 26 is a prince of the people who destroy the city and the sanctuary. This people must be the Romans, because they are the ones who destroyed the sanctuary. It does not fit that the Romans are the people of the Messiah. Because of this, I can't see how the prince that shall come could be the Messiah. He has to be someone associated with the Roman people. So I don't think it is anachronistic to speculate that this prince is somehow related to the abomination that makes desolation.

2) What covenant is it that the prince of the people that shall come confirms? Since there is no mention here of a new covenant, it seems likely that this is referring to the Old Covenant, not the New.

3) Your view is dependent on the idea that "He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering" refers to Christ's sacrifice rendering animal sacrifices obsolete; but the ceasing of sacrifices and offerings in the temple did not occur until the destruction of the Temple. The text seems to refer to them actually coming to an end, not the reason for them coming to an end.

4) Although I appreciate your idea that the Messiah is the last dominant figure, can you cite OT usage examples to establish this idea? It seems more likely to me that the "he" of verse 27 is the last person mentioned, "the prince that shall come," especially since the last mention of Messiah refers to him being "cut off."

5) Your view is entirely dependent on Messiah being cut off "after" (in the English sense) the sixty-ninth week. But it seems unnatural that the writer would use the indeterminate word "after" to describe an event which he shortly thereafter describes as taking place precisely in the middle of the week.

If you see some possible ways out of these difficulties, then I will look forward to reading your response!

[dizzle]

Dear Rusty:

It is added to the pile!! But as far as "difficulties" let me candidly say right up front that of course my view has them, but so does every other one. This is a notoriously difficult passage acknowledged by commentators of all stripes. I will certainly comment further for I see an implication in your view (that would not exist for RightIdea as an X9er) that to me is deadly to the whole system.

And again along the lines of difficulties, I do believe and will continue to attempt to prove that the preterist system of viewing this passage lines up the best with the other passages and references without inserting gaps or interruptions. And oh, I want to add that the view I am advocating here is not exclusive to preterism but has been a predominant view throughout Church history (though there have always be alternate views of course).

I appreciate you noticing the work that went into my post. I may be wrong, but I do work hard at being so wrong which is why it takes so long sometimes for me to post.

[Athanasius]

This is a notoriously difficult passage acknowledged by commentators of all stripes.

Agreed, and I recognize that there are difficulties with my view too, including the idea that the clock stopped ticking at the end of the sixty-ninth week. I have prayed about this, and so far the best I have been able to come up with is that the entire church age seems to be an indeterminate period (timewise) in prophetic events, granted by God sheerly out of His gracious love and mercy for mankind. If this is so, how long will it last? This brings to mind 2 Peter 3:9:

The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness, but is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance.

The difficulties with each view are made all the more tough to sort through by the fact that there are different possible ways to translate portions of this passage. In fact, there were other difficulties with your view I could have presented to you that relied on the most common translations, but decided against them because of possible alternate translations. Perhaps you also did not mention some points in your favor because of alternate translations.

Dee Dee:
It is added to the pile!!

I don't know how you do it all as it is! Perhaps you should replace your avatar with Wonder Woman! I will certainly understand if don't have time to reply.

[e4e]

Show me one place in Daniel 9 :24-26 that should give me reason to believe that the prince of the people is anything but the object of the preposition of and I will change my view. The prince of the people is never the subject being addressed at any point at any time..You are left defending the indefenseable.:bonk:

[Athanasius]

E4e, would you please elaborate your argument more? Are you saying that "he" in verse 27 can only refer to the primary subject of the previous sentance, but cannot refer to the last mentioned person if that person is the object of a preposition? If so, can you give me enough examples of this in other OT Hebrew scriptures to demonstrate that this is a general rule, or quote a Hebrew grammar authority to demonstrate this to me?

[e4e]

There is no punction in the Hebrew and no capitolization. The sentance that says and the Messiah shall be cut of but not for Himself is not what is said in the Hebrew.That is an arbatrary arangement by the translators.

The actual wording in the Hebrew is, "After weeks sixty and two shall be cut off messiah and is not to him and the city and the sanctuary destroy the people of a prince coming."

Now if I were to say that sentance in english I would add one word to clarify the sentance. The word, to, and place it between the words santuary and destroy.

The sentance then would read like this "after weeks sixty and two shall be cut off messiah and is not to him and the city and the sanctuary (to) destroy the people of a prince coming. Do you see the differance. It is all one sentance. and the word prince is not the last word in the sentance.

The prince of a coming people is never the subject being addressed. The Messiah is the subject and there is no indecation that any other subject is even considered.

[Athanasius]

Hi e4e,

Thanks for clarifying that. Apparently, I understood you correctly. My reading so far concerning this leads me to believe that in Hebrew (as in English) the antecedent of a pronoun (in this case implied by the verbal form of gabar) is sometimes in question. Usually this can be solved by looking for an antecedent that agrees in gender and number. I am crippled at the moment in that I have no Hebrew grammar books, but from what I can tell from the websites I have looked at that deal with Hebrew grammar, when there is more than one possible antecedent that agrees in gender and number, a general rule in Hebrew grammar (as in most languages) is that the NEAREST possible antecedent is the preferable one, unless the context demands otherwise. Sometimes this becomes a matter of interpretation. See http://www.rashiyomi.com/h8n5.htm, for instance.

An oft repeated preterist argument is the one you mentioned, that the prince that shall come could not be the antecedent because he is the object of a preposition and not the subject of the previous sentance. But what is the source of this argument? Are there any Hebrew grammar authorities you can cite to demonstrate that this is a rule of Hebrew grammar, or is this just a matter of interpretation?

Without that, the contextual reasons I presented, as well as the general rule of thumb that the nearest possible antecedent is usually the correct one, lead me to think that the "prince that shall come" is the antecedent.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

I have checked up your reading of 2 Chronicles 10:5, and found that I misread my source. You are correct, the word after does not appear in that verse. My mistake. Thank you for finding it.

The rest I will answer shortly.

Regards.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

Luke 1:24 – Now after those days his wife Elizabeth conceived…. The context is clear that “after” means exactly that, and it is used with a block of time, though admittedly not a specific number of days.

An excellent example... if it were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic! Where is the evidence that this is based on a Semitic original? The Greek meta has a different range of meaning than the Hebrew. One of the ways of spotting a Semitism is finding where the Greek word is used in a Hebrew or Aramaic manner, like with the prediction of the three days in the tomb. No one simply looks for a Greek preposition. Luke is composing here, in Greek. He is not quoting Jesus or anyone else speaking a Semitic tongue.

Matthew 17:1 – Now after six days Jesus took Peter....

Luke 19:28 – Now it came to pass, about eight days after…..

There is no way to get eight days or seven days if you are going to render “after” to mean “on” and count the day upon which the sequence begins.

Luke says about eight days. He clearly does not know exactly how many days passed. Matthew makes it clear that it happened "after six." I see no reason why the idiom cannot apply.

Furthermore, again, these notices are not obviously quoting a Semitic original. They are the work of the evangelists, writing in Greek! If the Greek meaning comes through, so be it. As Daniel 9 was composed in a Semitic tongue, we are looking for Semitisms, not Graecisms. My reason for using the example of the three days in the tomb was precisely because it was Jesus predicting it, presumably in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew).

Matthew 26:2 – You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.

Was Jesus simply saying “tomorrow”?

Yes. Why do you object? He spends that evening in Bethany, then the very next day the passover lambs are sacrificed (the first day of unleavened bread). That is exactly how the narrative is presented in all three synoptics.

So far, you have offered no examples of a person speaking a Semitic tongue and demonstrably breaking the pattern of the periods of time that I brought up.

My example of 2 Chronicles 10:5 was a mistake, no question. I misread my source, and should have checked it in the Hebrew text. However, even that example can easily be seen as following the principle of periods.

What I find, then, is that so far you have offered no Semitic example of the after in Daniel 9:26 doing what you want it to do. If the seventieth week has been entered into, why does the part that has passed not count this time? You need to find a Semitic example of the part of a day not counting.

Luke 1:24 would be a good example if we knew that he was translating an Aramaic or Hebrew source. Many other Greek usages would doubtless come in handy, again if we knew that they were based on Semitic originals.

I shall look over what you have to say about the rest of the seventy weeks in Daniel, and see what I come up with.

By the way, you objected to my first post because I supplied only a New Testament example. Now all that you provide is New Testament material?

:wink:

In him.

Etcetera.

[dizzle]

Thanks Etcetara.... I had really doubted myself because you know I have great respect for your thoroughness. No problem at all, it happens to the best of us.

[e4e]

Athanasius, when a pronoun in a sentence is the subject and there is a choice of two are more antecedents, it is my choice to use the antecedent that occupies the same possission in the sentence as the pronown. I am not a scholer by any strech, but to me it just makes good sense.

[bar Jonah]

02-24-2003 @ 11:08 AM
e4e:

Athanasius, when a pronoun in a sentence is the subject and there is a choice of two are more antecedents, it is my choice to use the antecedent that occupies the same possission in the sentence as the pronown. I am not a scholer by any strech, but to me it just makes good sense.
e4e, I know pretty much nothing personally about Hebrew grammar. But it does seem to me you are using false logic to interpret this passage. Just because it is "your choice" doesn't make it true. Different language systems around the world operate vastly differently from each other. You can't assume that a system works the way you choose it to. Proximity is far from being automatically the relevant characteristic. In Japanese, for example, words can modify each other from almost total opposite ends of a sentence; proximity be darned!

What we need is people who are deeply versed in Biblical Hebrew, including the nuances of both grammar and idiom. Which is exactly why, here on my end, I went to my friend in the messianic Jewish ministry, Menorah Ministry, for the "after" issue.

[e4e]

RightIdea
e4e, I know pretty much nothing personally about Hebrew grammar. But it does seem to me you are using false logic to interpret this passage.

e4e ---Your in the same boat so don't fill it with warter unless you are prepared to bail.:brow:

RightIdea Just because it is "your choice" doesn't make it true. Different language systems around the world operate vastly differently from each other.

e4e --- I supose your acceptace or non acceptance of a truth is not a matter of choice to you. I also rely on sources for information. My choices are whitin acceptable standards whithin the information that I have. At least I do not try to chang the meaning of words to get the text to agree with me.:bonk:

RightIdea What we need is people who are deeply versed in Biblical Hebrew, including the nuances of both grammar and idiom. Which is exactly why, here on my end, I went to my friend in the messianic Jewish ministry, Menorah Ministry, for the "after" issue.

e4e---Sounds to me like you have no faith in your own judgement. That fellow that you go to must know more then the the scollars who wrote my Hebrew,Greek and English Bible and my the other lexical adds that I have paid good money for. Just because he is a Jew does not make him smarter that the adverage bare. :rofl:

CHEERS :cheers:

[Athanasius]

Athanasius, when a pronoun in a sentence is the subject and there is a choice of two are more antecedents, it is my choice to use the antecedent that occupies the same possission in the sentence as the pronown. I am not a scholer by any strech, but to me it just makes good sense.

I can understand why that might seem sensible to you, but you must defer to the recognized grammatical usage of that language. As you are about to read, even some recognized amil scholars have been forced to do that when it comes to the antecedent of "he" in verse 27.

Tommy Ice:
In Hebrew grammar, as with most languages, a pronoun would refer to the nearest antecedent, unless there was a contextual reason to think otherwise. In this instance, the nearest antecedent in agreement with “he” is “the prince who is to come” in verse 26. This is recognized by a majority of scholars, including a number of amillennialists such as Kiel and Leupold. Only a priori theological bias could lead a trained interpreter of Scripture to any other conclusion.

From http://www.according2prophecy.org/seventy-weeks-pt3.html

Keil has done one of the most detailed studies of this, and concluded that the "he" was "the prince that shall come" in the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament.

[e4e]

That very well may be acceptable in some circles but the evedense of the text is that it is the activities of the messiah that is in focus.

When all is said and done it will stell be a matter of personal preferance based on what we believe to be the truth.

To me, personally, such an interpretation does violance to other prophic passages such as Rev. 17 and others. I do believe in future prophecy and I am not a pretreist or what ever it is. I didn't know such a thing existed untell Dee Dee said she was one. :huh: Stell don't know why they believe what they believe. It is not my fault that they happen to agree with me on this passage.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

I myself have no conclusive interpretation of the seventy weeks. As I run through your argument I hope to begin to show why that is... too many questions.

Verse 9:26 –And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;

And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.