The 70 Weeks of Daniel--Preterists only

[joelkaki]

I would like some input from all you other preterists out there on the 70 weeks prophecy. I've just got a few questions for you:

And please, only preterists respond; I already know what you futurists think about this, and I don't want to get into it with you on this.

1) Do you see the "weeks" as literal 7 year periods, or as symbolic?

2) What decree do you believe it is referring to, and what proof is there that it does indeed refer to that decree?

3) If they are literal 7 year periods, when is the end date of the 69th week (approximately at least)?

4) Anyone who knows about the parallelism in the passage--could you lay it out for me?

Thanks,
Joel

[dizzle]

Joel I have answers for you!!! Let me get some stuff together. It may take me a little bit.

I do believe the "years" are literal so I can get that one right off the bat.

[Lee1023]

Joel, look at Ezra chapter 6. Cyrus gave the decree for the House of Israel to rebuild the place where their sacrafices were made. From the month that decree was given you can count out by weeks (years) to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. There are extra-biblical historical records that also validate this. When people put this off to the future then they have to believe that the exact lining up of dates and events are just a fluke coiencidence (sp?).

Also, look at Daniel 9:24 which is the point to the 70 weeks. Jesus accomplished all those things, and there are numerous New Testament scriptures that declare his accomplishement of all these things.

In Him,

Lee1023:teeth:

[studyhound]

I would like some input from all you other preterists out there on the 70 weeks prophecy. I've just got a few questions for you:

And please, only preterists respond; I already know what you futurists think about this, and I don't want to get into it with you on this.

1) Do you see the "weeks" as literal 7 year periods, or as symbolic?

Literal- 70-7’s=490 years

2) What decree do you believe it is referring to, and what proof is there that it does indeed refer to that decree?

Artaxerxes – based on a 360 lunar (Jewish) calendar


3) If they are literal 7 year periods, when is the end date of the 69th week (approximately at least)?

Baptism of Christ \ beginning of his ministry



4) Anyone who knows about the parallelism in the passage--could you lay it out for me?

Thanks,
Joel
Are you talking about parallelism in Daniel? Or parallel verses?

:studyhound:

[Ted]

Joel,

With respect to Daniel 9, I am essentially a Preterist, so I believe my comments will be in the spirit of your query.

1. The key to the 70 weeks is the specifications of the decree, and all modern translations have it wrong. Grammatically 9:25 must be translated "the word to restore and to build up Jerusalem. The issue is verb/object agreement. Restore/sub never acts on physical structures, but always acts on people. Therefore, build/banah must also act on people, and thus Jerusalem is "built up" since you cannot "build" people.

2. The only decree that matches the specifications is in Ezra 7, and is given in full, in Aramaic, showing that this is the exact decree. No other candidate matches this detail. Further, it fits the specs perfectly. Neh 2, the other common candidate, builds, it does not build up, and it does not restore, aside from not being a decree.

3. Jewish months are lunar, but the years are solar. They are either 354 or 384 days long (plus or minus 1). There is no evidence that the Jews had ever heard of a 360-day year. Remember that Daniel is to "know and discern" the proper decree when it is given (9:25), and the Book of Revelation, on which the fictional 360-day year calculation is based, is over 5 centuries after any candidate decree. Therefore, there is no basis for 360-day years.

4. The 69 weeks are "until Messiah." Jesus came on the scene as the Messiah (see John 4, etc.) in AD27. He died in the midst of the 70th week (9:26), putting an end to sacrifice and grain offering (9:27).

5. The 70th week ended in AD34 with the covenant lawsuit brought by Stephen in Acts 7. This legal proceeding terminated the 70 weeks of probation defined by the six conditions in 9:24. After all, the Jews failed their probation.

That should summarize the 70 weeks from a Preterist and biblical view. Preterists and I may disagree on other issues, but we agree here.

Ted

[dizzle]

Amen Ted. As a dispie before, when I realized how much I was gutting this passage, contorting it, and really (sorry my dispie brethren) robbing Christ in it, I cannot believe I ever held to such a thing. The most frightful thing is that popular dispie thought puts the ATONEMENT!!!! in this mythological gap. If the 69th week ended at the Triumphal entry and the 70th week is yet future, that interpretation takes the whole point of the prophecy (Christ's work on the Cross) and drops it into this chasm which has lasted longer than the original length of the prophecy to begin with!

[Lee1023]

Beautiful Ted and Dee Dee:

TOput it in the future is defeinitely a travisty. We have the annointing of God upon us becaue the King reigns.

In Him, Lee1023:teeth:

[Ted]

DeeDee,

That's a nice point I hadn't considered before. Bravo!

Ted

[dizzle]

Ted, I was horrified when I saw it for myself. Since then i have seen a few others bring that up, but at the time I thought of it, it was on my own, and I was completely flabbergasted that I never noticed that before. Now i have seen some dispies come up with a different time marker that avoids this problem, but not those who are found of the Sir Robert Anderson ill-advised method of counting down allegedly to the very day.

[joelkaki]

Thanks for all the responses everbyody!

So, am I understanding this correctly, that both Ted and studyhound take the preterist viewpoint, yet Studyhound says it was a 360 day calendar, and Ted says differently? How do you both end up with a preterist interpretation if you disagree on that?



Joel

[studyhound]

Thanks for all the responses everbyody!



So, am I understanding this correctly, that both Ted and studyhound take the preterist viewpoint, yet Studyhound says it was a 360 day calendar, and Ted says differently? How do you both end up with a preterist interpretation if you disagree on that?







Joel



Well it seems like a couple of non-preterists theological point affects how we see the passage.



I hold to a later date of Jesus crucifixion, while Ted holds to an earlier view.



Also we differ on the nature of the Jewish year. While we both agree that the months were lunar, Ted holds they were not lunar years. While I hold that as a set of lunar months equals a lunar year.



:SH:

[dizzle]

In the Wrestlefest I just posted my response to Bill on Daniel, so there is a bit of preterist stuff there. When I write my positive case for that debate, I will be presenting a lot more.

Here is the link

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=487980#post487980