Does Daniel 9:24–27 support a dual 70-week fulfillment with a chiastic structure?

[GloryToHisName]

I’ve been studying Daniel 9:24–27 closely and created a detailed clause-by-clause chart of the prophecy, including Hebrew words, chiastic layers, and proposed historical and eschatological fulfillment. My translation emphasizes that the 70 weeks are “divided out” (נֶחְתַּךְ), and verse 25 mentions “the second sixty” (בַּשְּׁנַיִם שִׁשִּׁים), suggesting a second 70-week cycle beyond the first 70 fulfilled historically (457 BC – 33 AD).


══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Verse | Phrase / Clause | Hebrew Key Words | Chiastic Layer | Fulfillment / Date Marker
──────|----------------|-----------------|----------------|-------------------------
9:24 | There are divided out seventy weeks | נֶחְתַּךְ | A – Divine Purpose | Dual cycle: first 70 (457–33 BC), second 70 (1542–2032 CE)
9:24 | For your holy city | קָדְשְׁךָ | A | First 70: Jerusalem rebuilt 457–408 BC
9:24 | And your people's rebellion | עַמְּךָ | A | Second 70: Israel aligns with man of sin, 1967–2032 CE
9:24 | For the restraining of lawlessness | לְכַלֵּא חַטָּאת | A | Second 70: restraining the man of lawlessness (2 Thess 2), 2025–2028.5 CE
9:24 | Marked out for the coming punishment of purging | עָוֹן | A | Second 70: end of tribulation / Day of the Lord, ~2032 CE
9:24 | For the sealing of the vision and the prophet | וּלְחָתֵם חָזוֹן | A | Second 70: vision fully realized in eschatological age, ~2032 CE
9:24 | Unto the age of righteousness; anointed holy of holies | צֶדֶק, וְלִמְשֹׁחַ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים | A | Second 70: age of righteousness begins, ~2032 CE
──────|----------------|-----------------|----------------|-------------------------
9:25 | From the word that went forth | מִן-מֹצָא דָבָר | B – Starting Points | First 70: 457 BC decree; Second 70: 1542 CE Suleiman rebuilds
9:25 | For the restoration and building of Jerusalem | לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִם | B | First 70: 457–408 BC walls rebuilt; Second 70: 1542 CE walls rebuilt
9:25 | For a ruler and an anointed one for Jerusalem | נָגִיד וּמָשִׁיחַ | B | First 70: Ezra & Nehemiah; Second 70: typological “anointed ruler” / covenant leadership, 1967–2032 CE
9:25 | It shall take seven sevens to be built | שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעִים | B | First 70: 49 years, 457–408 BC
9:25 | Returned at the second sixty | בַּשְּׁנַיִם שִׁשִּׁים | B | Second 70: 1967 CE, second 60th week, pivotal chiastic marker
9:25 | Anguish and diligence in streets | — | B | Both 70s: First 70 = post-rebuilding trials; Second 70 = tribulation, 2025–2032 CE
──────|----------------|-----------------|----------------|-------------------------
9:26 | Two and sixty weeks after | שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם | C – Pivot | First 70: Messiah cut off, 26–33 AD
9:26 | None of the Messiah will be cut off | וְאֵין לוֹ | C | First 70: preserved remnant of faithful Jews, 26–33 AD
9:26 | People of the ruler shall come like a flood | עַם-נָגִיד יָבוֹא בַּשֶּׁטֶף | C | Second 70: eschatological armies / enemies, 1967–2025 CE
9:26 | City and sanctuary destroyed | הָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ יִשָּׁחְתּוּ | C | First 70: 70 AD temple destruction; Second 70: final judgment & abomination destruction, ~2032 CE
──────|----------------|-----------------|----------------|-------------------------
9:27 | He shall cause many of the covenant to prevail | וְהִגְבִּיר בְּרִית לָרַבִּים | D – Central Climax | Second 70: 2025 CE start of final 7-year week
9:27 | For the week and a half of one | וְחֲצִי הַשָּׁבוּעַ | D | Second 70: mid-week, 3½ yrs into final week, 2028.5 CE
9:27 | Upon offering and sacrifice he shall bring to end abominations | מִנְחָה וְזֶבַח … שִׁקּוּצִים | D | Second 70: eschatological cleansing of temple / people, 2025–2032 CE
9:27 | Until the one who makes desolate pours out what is decreed for consummation | שֹׁמֵם | D | Second 70: consummation / Day of the Lord, ~2032 CE
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Notes:
- Chiastic pattern: A–B–C–D–C’–B’–A’
- Hebrew keywords highlighted for structural clarity
- Second 60th week = 1967 CE pivotal marker
- Restraining lawlessness = 2 Thess 2 reference; final week = revealing of man of sin

Questions for the community:

1. Does the Hebrew wording and syntax provide linguistic support for two distinct 70-week cycles, rather than a single 490-year timeline?


2. Can the chiastic pattern (A–B–C–D–C’–B’–A’) be reasonably defended from a grammatical and syntactical standpoint?


3. Are there any objections from the Hebrew text itself (singular/plural forms, verb agreements, semantic scope) that might favor a single-cycle interpretation?



I’d love insights from scholars or practitioners experienced in Biblical Hebrew, Daniel studies, or eschatological prophecy analysis.


---
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
DANIEL 9:24–27 DUAL 70-WEEK CHIASM
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CHIASTIC LAYER: A B C D

FIRST 70 WEEKS — HISTORICAL FULFILLMENT
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
457 BC 408 BC 26 AD 33 AD 70 AD
|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
Word goes 7 weeks Messiah Messiah cut Temple
forth: decree (49 yrs) appears off (וְאֵין לוֹ) destroyed
to rebuild Built walls (נָגִיד/ People of City & Sanctuary
Jerusalem /city מָשִׁיחַ) the ruler destroyed
(מִן-מֹצָא completed rejected (הָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ)
דָבָר, בִּירוּשָׁלִם) Messiah)
נָגִיד וּמָשִׁיחַ)

Verse refs: 9:24–26

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
SECOND 70 WEEKS — MODERN / ESCHATOLOGICAL FULFILLMENT
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1542 CE 1967 CE 2025 CE 2028.5 CE 2032 CE
|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
Word goes Second 60th Start final Midpoint of Consummation
forth: Suleiman week marker 7-year week week, half- / Day of Lord
rebuilt walls (בַּשְּׁנַיִם Many of the week (וַחֲצִי ends / holy
of Jerusalem שִׁשִּׁים) covenant הַשָּׁבוּעַ) place anointed
(מִן-מֹצָא prevail (וְהִגְבִּיר)
דָבָר)

Abominations cease (שִׁקּוּצִים)
Until the one who makes desolate pours out decree (שֹׁמֵם)

Verse refs: 9:24–27
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
CHIASTIC STRUCTURE KEY:

A — Holy City / People’s Rebellion (v.24)
B — Starting points / restoration (v.25)
C — Messiah cut off / people of ruler (v.26)
D — Many of covenant prevail / final week & half-week / cleansing (v.27)
C’ — Mirror of C: eschatological “people of ruler” & destruction
B’ — Mirror of B: second 60th week / Jerusalem returned
A’ — Mirror of A: consummation / sealing up / age of righteousness
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

 

[pastorwaris]

I’ve been studying Daniel 9:24–27 closely and created a detailed clause-by-clause chart of the prophecy, including Hebrew words, chiastic layers, and proposed historical and eschatological fulfillment. My translation emphasizes that the 70 weeks are “divided out” (נֶחְתַּךְ), and verse 25 mentions “the second sixty” (בַּשְּׁנַיִם שִׁשִּׁים), suggesting a second 70-week cycle beyond the first 70 fulfilled historically (457 BC – 33 AD).


══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Verse | Phrase / Clause | Hebrew Key Words | Chiastic Layer | Fulfillment / Date Marker
──────|----------------|-----------------|----------------|-------------------------
9:24 | There are divided out seventy weeks | נֶחְתַּךְ | A – Divine Purpose | Dual cycle: first 70 (457–33 BC), second 70 (1542–2032 CE)
9:24 | For your holy city | קָדְשְׁךָ | A | First 70: Jerusalem rebuilt 457–408 BC
9:24 | And your people's rebellion | עַמְּךָ | A | Second 70: Israel aligns with man of sin, 1967–2032 CE
9:24 | For the restraining of lawlessness | לְכַלֵּא חַטָּאת | A | Second 70: restraining the man of lawlessness (2 Thess 2), 2025–2028.5 CE
9:24 | Marked out for the coming punishment of purging | עָוֹן | A | Second 70: end of tribulation / Day of the Lord, ~2032 CE
9:24 | For the sealing of the vision and the prophet | וּלְחָתֵם חָזוֹן | A | Second 70: vision fully realized in eschatological age, ~2032 CE
9:24 | Unto the age of righteousness; anointed holy of holies | צֶדֶק, וְלִמְשֹׁחַ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים | A | Second 70: age of righteousness begins, ~2032 CE
──────|----------------|-----------------|----------------|-------------------------
9:25 | From the word that went forth | מִן-מֹצָא דָבָר | B – Starting Points | First 70: 457 BC decree; Second 70: 1542 CE Suleiman rebuilds
9:25 | For the restoration and building of Jerusalem | לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִם | B | First 70: 457–408 BC walls rebuilt; Second 70: 1542 CE walls rebuilt
9:25 | For a ruler and an anointed one for Jerusalem | נָגִיד וּמָשִׁיחַ | B | First 70: Ezra & Nehemiah; Second 70: typological “anointed ruler” / covenant leadership, 1967–2032 CE
9:25 | It shall take seven sevens to be built | שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעִים | B | First 70: 49 years, 457–408 BC
9:25 | Returned at the second sixty | בַּשְּׁנַיִם שִׁשִּׁים | B | Second 70: 1967 CE, second 60th week, pivotal chiastic marker
9:25 | Anguish and diligence in streets | — | B | Both 70s: First 70 = post-rebuilding trials; Second 70 = tribulation, 2025–2032 CE
──────|----------------|-----------------|----------------|-------------------------
9:26 | Two and sixty weeks after | שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם | C – Pivot | First 70: Messiah cut off, 26–33 AD
9:26 | None of the Messiah will be cut off | וְאֵין לוֹ | C | First 70: preserved remnant of faithful Jews, 26–33 AD
9:26 | People of the ruler shall come like a flood | עַם-נָגִיד יָבוֹא בַּשֶּׁטֶף | C | Second 70: eschatological armies / enemies, 1967–2025 CE
9:26 | City and sanctuary destroyed | הָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ יִשָּׁחְתּוּ | C | First 70: 70 AD temple destruction; Second 70: final judgment & abomination destruction, ~2032 CE
──────|----------------|-----------------|----------------|-------------------------
9:27 | He shall cause many of the covenant to prevail | וְהִגְבִּיר בְּרִית לָרַבִּים | D – Central Climax | Second 70: 2025 CE start of final 7-year week
9:27 | For the week and a half of one | וְחֲצִי הַשָּׁבוּעַ | D | Second 70: mid-week, 3½ yrs into final week, 2028.5 CE
9:27 | Upon offering and sacrifice he shall bring to end abominations | מִנְחָה וְזֶבַח … שִׁקּוּצִים | D | Second 70: eschatological cleansing of temple / people, 2025–2032 CE
9:27 | Until the one who makes desolate pours out what is decreed for consummation | שֹׁמֵם | D | Second 70: consummation / Day of the Lord, ~2032 CE
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Notes:
- Chiastic pattern: A–B–C–D–C’–B’–A’
- Hebrew keywords highlighted for structural clarity
- Second 60th week = 1967 CE pivotal marker
- Restraining lawlessness = 2 Thess 2 reference; final week = revealing of man of sin

Questions for the community:

1. Does the Hebrew wording and syntax provide linguistic support for two distinct 70-week cycles, rather than a single 490-year timeline?


2. Can the chiastic pattern (A–B–C–D–C’–B’–A’) be reasonably defended from a grammatical and syntactical standpoint?


3. Are there any objections from the Hebrew text itself (singular/plural forms, verb agreements, semantic scope) that might favor a single-cycle interpretation?



I’d love insights from scholars or practitioners experienced in Biblical Hebrew, Daniel studies, or eschatological prophecy analysis.


---
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
DANIEL 9:24–27 DUAL 70-WEEK CHIASM
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CHIASTIC LAYER: A B C D

FIRST 70 WEEKS — HISTORICAL FULFILLMENT
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
457 BC 408 BC 26 AD 33 AD 70 AD
|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
Word goes 7 weeks Messiah Messiah cut Temple
forth: decree (49 yrs) appears off (וְאֵין לוֹ) destroyed
to rebuild Built walls (נָגִיד/ People of City & Sanctuary
Jerusalem /city מָשִׁיחַ) the ruler destroyed
(מִן-מֹצָא completed rejected (הָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ)
דָבָר, בִּירוּשָׁלִם) Messiah)
נָגִיד וּמָשִׁיחַ)

Verse refs: 9:24–26

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
SECOND 70 WEEKS — MODERN / ESCHATOLOGICAL FULFILLMENT
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1542 CE 1967 CE 2025 CE 2028.5 CE 2032 CE
|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
Word goes Second 60th Start final Midpoint of Consummation
forth: Suleiman week marker 7-year week week, half- / Day of Lord
rebuilt walls (בַּשְּׁנַיִם Many of the week (וַחֲצִי ends / holy
of Jerusalem שִׁשִּׁים) covenant הַשָּׁבוּעַ) place anointed
(מִן-מֹצָא prevail (וְהִגְבִּיר)
דָבָר)

Abominations cease (שִׁקּוּצִים)
Until the one who makes desolate pours out decree (שֹׁמֵם)

Verse refs: 9:24–27
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
CHIASTIC STRUCTURE KEY:

A — Holy City / People’s Rebellion (v.24)
B — Starting points / restoration (v.25)
C — Messiah cut off / people of ruler (v.26)
D — Many of covenant prevail / final week & half-week / cleansing (v.27)
C’ — Mirror of C: eschatological “people of ruler” & destruction
B’ — Mirror of B: second 60th week / Jerusalem returned
A’ — Mirror of A: consummation / sealing up / age of righteousness
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Dear brother in Christ,

Thank you for sharing such a thoughtful, diligent, and deeply researched study of Daniel 9:24–27. I truly appreciate the level of devotion and intellectual honesty that went into your analysis. Daniel 9 is one of the richest and most debated prophetic passages, and your attempt to trace linguistic, structural, and historical elements is commendable.
Let me offer a positive, encouraging response, while also providing a few biblical clarifications that may strengthen your study where needed.

1. Does Daniel 9 support a dual 70-week fulfillment?​

A constructive and biblical “Yes but with caution.”​

There is room within the prophetic genre for dual-layer fulfillment (what scholars call prophetic telescoping or typological fulfillment).
The Hebrew verb נֶחְתַּךְ (neḥtakh, “decreed / cut out / divided out”) in 9:24 can linguistically allow for a “set-apart period” without specifying strict limitation to a single cycle.
In Scripture, God sometimes applies a single prophetic pattern twice:

• Day of the Lord, "historical (Isa 13) and eschatological (Joel 2–3)."
• Abomination of Desolation, "Antiochus IV (Dan 11), Roman destruction (Matt 24), and an end-time antichristic pattern."
• Temple imagery, "physical, spiritual, and eschatological (Ezek 40–48; Rev 21–22)."

So a dual 70-week structure is not impossible within biblical theology.

However…​

The Hebrew text does not explicitly state “two distinct 70-week cycles.”
Your view remains interpretive, not grammatical necessity.
Still, you are right that the text invites deep structural exploration.

2. Chiastic structure (A–B–C–D–C′–B′–A′): Is it defensible?​

Yes, chiasm is very common in Hebrew literature, especially prophetic and poetic texts.
Examples:

• Psalm 1
• Daniel 2–7 is a well-known Aramaic chiasm (A–B–C–C′–B′–A′).
• Lamentations 1–5
• Isaiah 6

Your proposed chiastic layers for Daniel 9:24–27 have merit, particularly:

• A: Purpose clauses (v.24)
• B: Starting points / Jerusalem (v.25)
• C: Messiah & destruction (v.26)
• D: The covenant / final week (v.27)

Scholars such as Goldingay, Collins, and Waltke affirm that Daniel frequently uses chiasms, so your proposal is not out of place.
The only caution is that some connections (such as “second 60th week = 1967”) rely more on historical correlation than textual markers.

3. Hebrew objections? Single-cycle vs dual-cycle​

Here is where we must be careful. The Hebrew grammar, taken on its own, naturally leans toward one 70-week unit, because:

• The number “seventy” (שִׁבְעִים) appears only once (v.24)​

Hebrew typically repeats the number if a second unit is intended.

• The “seven weeks + sixty-two weeks” (v.25) grammatically forms a single continuous chain​

שִׁבְעָה שָׁבֻעִים וְשִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם
This is one long span in classical Hebrew.

• The phrase בַּשְּׁנַיִם שִׁשִּׁים​

You interpreted as “the second sixty.”
However, in Hebrew syntax it is normally read as:
“In the sixty-two” (the same period mentioned previously).

So the standard Hebrew reading supports a single timeline grammatically, even if theologically one might argue for dual fulfillment.
Your interpretation is innovative, but the Hebrew text does not require two cycles.

Dear Brother, your study shows hunger for truth, deep respect for the Word, and a willingness to wrestle with difficult prophecy just like Daniel himself (Dan 9:2–3). Whether one adopts a single-cycle or dual-cycle view, your focus on holiness, righteousness, covenant faithfulness, and the triumph of God’s Kingdom is exactly what prophecy is designed to produce (Rev 19:10).

Daniel’s message whether fulfilled once or twice points us to:

✓ The finished work of Messiah (v.26)​

✓ The coming final cleansing (v.27)​

✓ The triumph of everlasting righteousness (v.24)​

Greek parallels in the New Testament reinforce this:
Paul speaks of ἀνομία (lawlessness), ἀποκάλυψις (revealing), and καιρός (appointed time) in 2 Thess 2, echoing Daniel’s motifs.
So your emphasis on an eschatological completion is thoroughly biblical.

My Dear Brother,​

Keep digging. Keep refining. Your love for Scripture honors the Author of Scripture.
Even where interpretations differ, the spirit of your study is upright, humble, and God-seeking.

If you continue polishing the linguistic foundations, especially the Hebrew syntax. you will bless many believers with this work.

Shalom and blessings in Messiah,
Pastor Waris

 

[GloryToHisName]

Dear brother in Christ,

Thank you for sharing such a thoughtful, diligent, and deeply researched study of Daniel 9:24–27. I truly appreciate the level of devotion and intellectual honesty that went into your analysis. Daniel 9 is one of the richest and most debated prophetic passages, and your attempt to trace linguistic, structural, and historical elements is commendable.
Let me offer a positive, encouraging response, while also providing a few biblical clarifications that may strengthen your study where needed.

1. Does Daniel 9 support a dual 70-week fulfillment?​

A constructive and biblical “Yes but with caution.”​

There is room within the prophetic genre for dual-layer fulfillment (what scholars call prophetic telescoping or typological fulfillment).
The Hebrew verb נֶחְתַּךְ (neḥtakh, “decreed / cut out / divided out”) in 9:24 can linguistically allow for a “set-apart period” without specifying strict limitation to a single cycle.
In Scripture, God sometimes applies a single prophetic pattern twice:

• Day of the Lord, "historical (Isa 13) and eschatological (Joel 2–3)."
• Abomination of Desolation, "Antiochus IV (Dan 11), Roman destruction (Matt 24), and an end-time antichristic pattern."
• Temple imagery, "physical, spiritual, and eschatological (Ezek 40–48; Rev 21–22)."

So a dual 70-week structure is not impossible within biblical theology.

However…​

The Hebrew text does not explicitly state “two distinct 70-week cycles.”
Your view remains interpretive, not grammatical necessity.
Still, you are right that the text invites deep structural exploration.

2. Chiastic structure (A–B–C–D–C′–B′–A′): Is it defensible?​

Yes, chiasm is very common in Hebrew literature, especially prophetic and poetic texts.
Examples:

• Psalm 1
• Daniel 2–7 is a well-known Aramaic chiasm (A–B–C–C′–B′–A′).
• Lamentations 1–5
• Isaiah 6

Your proposed chiastic layers for Daniel 9:24–27 have merit, particularly:

• A: Purpose clauses (v.24)
• B: Starting points / Jerusalem (v.25)
• C: Messiah & destruction (v.26)
• D: The covenant / final week (v.27)

Scholars such as Goldingay, Collins, and Waltke affirm that Daniel frequently uses chiasms, so your proposal is not out of place.
The only caution is that some connections (such as “second 60th week = 1967”) rely more on historical correlation than textual markers.

3. Hebrew objections? Single-cycle vs dual-cycle​

Here is where we must be careful. The Hebrew grammar, taken on its own, naturally leans toward one 70-week unit, because:

• The number “seventy” (שִׁבְעִים) appears only once (v.24)​

Hebrew typically repeats the number if a second unit is intended.

• The “seven weeks + sixty-two weeks” (v.25) grammatically forms a single continuous chain​

שִׁבְעָה שָׁבֻעִים וְשִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם
This is one long span in classical Hebrew.

• The phrase בַּשְּׁנַיִם שִׁשִּׁים​

You interpreted as “the second sixty.”
However, in Hebrew syntax it is normally read as:
“In the sixty-two” (the same period mentioned previously).

So the standard Hebrew reading supports a single timeline grammatically, even if theologically one might argue for dual fulfillment.
Your interpretation is innovative, but the Hebrew text does not require two cycles.

Dear Brother, your study shows hunger for truth, deep respect for the Word, and a willingness to wrestle with difficult prophecy just like Daniel himself (Dan 9:2–3). Whether one adopts a single-cycle or dual-cycle view, your focus on holiness, righteousness, covenant faithfulness, and the triumph of God’s Kingdom is exactly what prophecy is designed to produce (Rev 19:10).

Daniel’s message whether fulfilled once or twice points us to:

✓ The finished work of Messiah (v.26)​

✓ The coming final cleansing (v.27)​

✓ The triumph of everlasting righteousness (v.24)​

Greek parallels in the New Testament reinforce this:
Paul speaks of ἀνομία (lawlessness), ἀποκάλυψις (revealing), and καιρός (appointed time) in 2 Thess 2, echoing Daniel’s motifs.
So your emphasis on an eschatological completion is thoroughly biblical.

My Dear Brother,​

Keep digging. Keep refining. Your love for Scripture honors the Author of Scripture.
Even where interpretations differ, the spirit of your study is upright, humble, and God-seeking.

If you continue polishing the linguistic foundations, especially the Hebrew syntax. you will bless many believers with this work.

Shalom and blessings in Messiah,
Pastor Waris

Thank you, and God bless

 

[samaus123456789]

The decree was 444 bc in Nehemiah 2 20th year of Artaxerxes- 483 =39 Ad -1 year when going from bc to ad = 38 AD. The author of Genesis, and Jubilees (both Moses) are using 360 day a year calendar same with the author of Revelation so need to - another 7 years = 31 AD for the crucifixion. The 444 date comes from archaeology, and could be wrong by a year or two. Notice the 70th 7 is not connected to the 69th in Daniel 9. Eleazar Ben Hananias stops the daily sacrifice 66 AD starting the Judean Roman wars (Josephus) so the final 7 was 63-70 AD ending with the temple being destroyed, and someone setting up an abomination of desolation in it before hand whatever it was as it was not recorded by Josephus. Inspired scripture stopped here too.

 

[pastorwaris]

The decree was 444 bc in Nehemiah 2 20th year of Artaxerxes- 483 =39 Ad -1 year when going from bc to ad = 38 AD. The author of Genesis, and Jubilees (both Moses) are using 360 day a year calendar same with the author of Revelation so need to - another 7 years = 31 AD for the crucifixion. The 444 date comes from archaeology, and could be wrong by a year or two. Notice the 70th 7 is not connected to the 69th in Daniel 9. Eleazar Ben Hananias stops the daily sacrifice 66 AD starting the Judean Roman wars (Josephus) so the final 7 was 63-70 AD ending with the temple being destroyed, and someone setting up an abomination of desolation in it before hand whatever it was as it was not recorded by Josephus. Inspired scripture stopped here too.

Brother, thank you for your thoughtful contribution!
Your observations about the decree of Artaxerxes, the 360-day prophetic calendar, and Josephus’ account of the cessation of sacrifices are valuable pieces of the discussion. You clearly have a good grasp of the historical data and how many scholars approach Daniel’s timeline. I appreciate the precision and care in your argument.

Allow me to respond point-by-point with respect, while also offering a few clarifications from the Hebrew text, chronology, and New Testament context.

1. About the 444 BC decree (Nehemiah 2)​

The 444 BC date is indeed widely held (Artaxerxes’ 20th year), but even conservative scholars acknowledge some chronological uncertainties in Persian regnal years.
However, Daniel 9:25 says:
מִן־מֹצָא דָבָר לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם
"From the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem."
Many scholars note that Ezra 7 (457 BC) is the only decree that explicitly authorizes restoration (לְהָשִׁיב) not just repairs. Nehemiah’s decree is more narrowly focused on the walls.
So while 444 BC is a legitimate position, 457 BC remains linguistically stronger.
Your point is well-taken, but the Hebrew nuances keep the discussion open.

2. About the 360-day prophetic calendar​

Yes, prophetic literature often uses a 360-day schema (e.g., Rev 11–12: “1260 days = 42 months = 3½ years”).
But applying a strict 360-day year to Daniel’s 70 weeks is interpretive, not required by the Hebrew text.
In Daniel 9, no unit of days is mentioned only שָׁבֻעִים (weeks/sets of seven).
The text leaves the “type” of year undefined.
So using a 360-day year can be helpful, but it is not mandated linguistically.

3. “The 70th week is not connected to the 69th”​

This is an excellent observation. Many scholars agree with you:
There is an intentional gap between the 69th and the 70th week.

Daniel 9:26 explicitly states:
וְאַחֲרֵי הַשָּׁבֻעִים שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם
“After the sixty-two weeks…” then events occur before v.27’s final week begins.
This does show a structural separation.
Where interpreters differ is how long the gap is.

You propose 33–63 AD.
Others argue the gap continues into the last days (cf. Matt 24:15; 2 Thess 2; Rev 13).
Both views attempt to handle the same textual tension in different ways.

4. Eleazar ben Hananiah stopping the sacrifices (66 AD)​

You are absolutely right that Josephus records this:

“The daily sacrifice was stopped by the zealots.” (Wars 4.2.1)

This is a strong candidate for the “cessation of sacrifice” in Daniel 9:27.
However:

• The text of Daniel 9 describes a covenant being enforced (וְהִגְבִּיר בְּרִית לָרַבִּים)​

There is no record of Eleazar, Zealots, or Romans strengthening a covenant with many.

• Jesus places the “abomination of desolation” (Dan 9:27) in the future relative to 30 AD (Matt 24:15)​

Meaning something beyond His earthly ministry.

So 66–70 AD is historically important,
but not a complete fulfillment of Daniel 9:27.

5. “Inspired Scripture stopped here.”​

Brother, respectfully this is a theological conclusion, not a textual one.
Jesus and the apostles treat the destruction of Jerusalem as a pattern, but not the final culmination:

• Paul (2 Thess 2) speaks of a future man of lawlessness seated in the temple of God.
• John (Revelation) describes further abominations, prophetic timelines, and covenant persecutions.
• Jesus (Matt 24:21–29) links a future tribulation to Daniel’s prophecy.

So the New Testament does not treat 70 AD as the end of prophetic history.

Blessings

 

[samaus123456789]

Brother, thank you for your thoughtful contribution!
Your observations about the decree of Artaxerxes, the 360-day prophetic calendar, and Josephus’ account of the cessation of sacrifices are valuable pieces of the discussion. You clearly have a good grasp of the historical data and how many scholars approach Daniel’s timeline. I appreciate the precision and care in your argument.

Allow me to respond point-by-point with respect, while also offering a few clarifications from the Hebrew text, chronology, and New Testament context.

1. About the 444 BC decree (Nehemiah 2)​

The 444 BC date is indeed widely held (Artaxerxes’ 20th year), but even conservative scholars acknowledge some chronological uncertainties in Persian regnal years.
However, Daniel 9:25 says:
מִן־מֹצָא דָבָר לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם
"From the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem."
Many scholars note that Ezra 7 (457 BC) is the only decree that explicitly authorizes restoration (לְהָשִׁיב) not just repairs. Nehemiah’s decree is more narrowly focused on the walls.
So while 444 BC is a legitimate position, 457 BC remains linguistically stronger.
Your point is well-taken, but the Hebrew nuances keep the discussion open.

2. About the 360-day prophetic calendar​

Yes, prophetic literature often uses a 360-day schema (e.g., Rev 11–12: “1260 days = 42 months = 3½ years”).
But applying a strict 360-day year to Daniel’s 70 weeks is interpretive, not required by the Hebrew text.
In Daniel 9, no unit of days is mentioned only שָׁבֻעִים (weeks/sets of seven).
The text leaves the “type” of year undefined.
So using a 360-day year can be helpful, but it is not mandated linguistically.

3. “The 70th week is not connected to the 69th”​

This is an excellent observation. Many scholars agree with you:
There is an intentional gap between the 69th and the 70th week.

Daniel 9:26 explicitly states:
וְאַחֲרֵי הַשָּׁבֻעִים שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם
“After the sixty-two weeks…” then events occur before v.27’s final week begins.
This does show a structural separation.
Where interpreters differ is how long the gap is.

You propose 33–63 AD.
Others argue the gap continues into the last days (cf. Matt 24:15; 2 Thess 2; Rev 13).
Both views attempt to handle the same textual tension in different ways.

4. Eleazar ben Hananiah stopping the sacrifices (66 AD)​

You are absolutely right that Josephus records this:



This is a strong candidate for the “cessation of sacrifice” in Daniel 9:27.
However:

• The text of Daniel 9 describes a covenant being enforced (וְהִגְבִּיר בְּרִית לָרַבִּים)​

There is no record of Eleazar, Zealots, or Romans strengthening a covenant with many.

• Jesus places the “abomination of desolation” (Dan 9:27) in the future relative to 30 AD (Matt 24:15)​

Meaning something beyond His earthly ministry.

So 66–70 AD is historically important,
but not a complete fulfillment of Daniel 9:27.

5. “Inspired Scripture stopped here.”​

Brother, respectfully this is a theological conclusion, not a textual one.
Jesus and the apostles treat the destruction of Jerusalem as a pattern, but not the final culmination:

• Paul (2 Thess 2) speaks of a future man of lawlessness seated in the temple of God.
• John (Revelation) describes further abominations, prophetic timelines, and covenant persecutions.
• Jesus (Matt 24:21–29) links a future tribulation to Daniel’s prophecy.

So the New Testament does not treat 70 AD as the end of prophetic history.

Blessings

457- 483 (69 7s) =26 - another 1 because of going from bc to ad=25ad You likely do not believe that was the crucifixion date. And yes you have to adjust if changing from Gregorian to 360 day calendar so you have to - even more years. The evidence is the authors of the bible are using a 360 day a year calendar. If you have evidence to show otherwise then do it. Not the talmud aka jewish fables. What I said is right unless you want to argue against any of those things. 2 Thes 2 happened 70 AD. The believers body is the temple of the holy spirit now. All of math 24 happened 70 ad. I explained it in the Jude Enoch thread. Rev 1-12 happened 70 ad but rev 13-22 is future. Vision and prophecy was sealed up by 70 AD. Revelation was written 41 AD. The final 7 was 63-70 AD. Whatever the abom of des was it happened 70 ad but was not recorded past tense. 483 times 5.24 = (whatever it is) / 360 = 7 years less when using a 360 day calender vs gregorian 365.24 so if the decree was 457 bc the crucifixion date would be 18 ad.

 

[samaus123456789]

Brother, thank you for your thoughtful contribution!
Your observations about the decree of Artaxerxes, the 360-day prophetic calendar, and Josephus’ account of the cessation of sacrifices are valuable pieces of the discussion. You clearly have a good grasp of the historical data and how many scholars approach Daniel’s timeline. I appreciate the precision and care in your argument.

Allow me to respond point-by-point with respect, while also offering a few clarifications from the Hebrew text, chronology, and New Testament context.

1. About the 444 BC decree (Nehemiah 2)​

The 444 BC date is indeed widely held (Artaxerxes’ 20th year), but even conservative scholars acknowledge some chronological uncertainties in Persian regnal years.
However, Daniel 9:25 says:
מִן־מֹצָא דָבָר לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם
"From the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem."
Many scholars note that Ezra 7 (457 BC) is the only decree that explicitly authorizes restoration (לְהָשִׁיב) not just repairs. Nehemiah’s decree is more narrowly focused on the walls.
So while 444 BC is a legitimate position, 457 BC remains linguistically stronger.
Your point is well-taken, but the Hebrew nuances keep the discussion open.

2. About the 360-day prophetic calendar​

Yes, prophetic literature often uses a 360-day schema (e.g., Rev 11–12: “1260 days = 42 months = 3½ years”).
But applying a strict 360-day year to Daniel’s 70 weeks is interpretive, not required by the Hebrew text.
In Daniel 9, no unit of days is mentioned only שָׁבֻעִים (weeks/sets of seven).
The text leaves the “type” of year undefined.
So using a 360-day year can be helpful, but it is not mandated linguistically.

3. “The 70th week is not connected to the 69th”​

This is an excellent observation. Many scholars agree with you:
There is an intentional gap between the 69th and the 70th week.

Daniel 9:26 explicitly states:
וְאַחֲרֵי הַשָּׁבֻעִים שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם
“After the sixty-two weeks…” then events occur before v.27’s final week begins.
This does show a structural separation.
Where interpreters differ is how long the gap is.

You propose 33–63 AD.
Others argue the gap continues into the last days (cf. Matt 24:15; 2 Thess 2; Rev 13).
Both views attempt to handle the same textual tension in different ways.

4. Eleazar ben Hananiah stopping the sacrifices (66 AD)​

You are absolutely right that Josephus records this:



This is a strong candidate for the “cessation of sacrifice” in Daniel 9:27.
However:

• The text of Daniel 9 describes a covenant being enforced (וְהִגְבִּיר בְּרִית לָרַבִּים)​

There is no record of Eleazar, Zealots, or Romans strengthening a covenant with many.

• Jesus places the “abomination of desolation” (Dan 9:27) in the future relative to 30 AD (Matt 24:15)​

Meaning something beyond His earthly ministry.

So 66–70 AD is historically important,
but not a complete fulfillment of Daniel 9:27.

5. “Inspired Scripture stopped here.”​

Brother, respectfully this is a theological conclusion, not a textual one.
Jesus and the apostles treat the destruction of Jerusalem as a pattern, but not the final culmination:

• Paul (2 Thess 2) speaks of a future man of lawlessness seated in the temple of God.
• John (Revelation) describes further abominations, prophetic timelines, and covenant persecutions.
• Jesus (Matt 24:21–29) links a future tribulation to Daniel’s prophecy.

So the New Testament does not treat 70 AD as the end of prophetic history.

Blessings

Assuming the author of Daniel is using 360 day years. Then over the course of 483 years it makes 5.24 days a year times 483=2530 days difference / 360=7 year difference when compared to Gregorian 365.24 day a year. I was subtracting that from 483 but maybe it should be added? You think it does not need to be calculated?

 

[samaus123456789]

I had a mistake in the maths at one point not doing things in the right order.


In Dan 9 the messiah was going to be cut off (the crucifixion) at the end of 483 years (69 times 7) starting from when a decree went out to rebuild. One of the decrees is in Nehemiah 2 the 20th year of Artaxerxes of Persia which based on archeology was 445 BC. The author of Genesis (150 days, 5 months) Jubilees (150 days, 5 months) , and Revelation (times, time, half a time, 1260 days) are using 360 day a year calendars. So 445 BC minus 483 = -39 AD then minus another 1 year when going from BC to AD or vice versa 40 AD in Gregorian years. To convert to 360 day years then 483 times 5.24 days (the difference between Gregorian years of 365.24 and 360 day years)= 2530/ 360 = 7 year difference. Subtract 7 from 40 AD puts the crucifixion at 33 AD. Please explain if there is a problem with that math.

If the decree was 7th year of Artaxerxes 457 BC in Ezra then 457-483= -26, - another 1= 27 AD - 7 = 20 AD so that makes no sense unless someone has Jesus being born around 10 BC (the NT says something about Jesus 30th year)

 

[pastorwaris]

I had a mistake in the maths at one point not doing things in the right order.


In Dan 9 the messiah was going to be cut off (the crucifixion) at the end of 483 years (69 times 7) starting from when a decree went out to rebuild. One of the decrees is in Nehemiah 2 the 20th year of Artaxerxes of Persia which based on archeology was 445 BC. The author of Genesis (150 days, 5 months) Jubilees (150 days, 5 months) , and Revelation (times, time, half a time, 1260 days) are using 360 day a year calendars. So 445 BC minus 483 = -39 AD then minus another 1 year when going from BC to AD or vice versa 40 AD in Gregorian years. To convert to 360 day years then 483 times 5.24 days (the difference between Gregorian years of 365.24 and 360 day years)= 2530/ 360 = 7 year difference. Subtract 7 from 40 AD puts the crucifixion at 33 AD. Please explain if there is a problem with that math.

If the decree was 7th year of Artaxerxes 457 BC in Ezra then 457-483= -26, - another 1= 27 AD - 7 = 20 AD so that makes no sense unless someone has Jesus being born around 10 BC (the NT says something about Jesus 30th year)

Dear Brother, thank you for all three replies your effort, calculations, and desire for accuracy are genuinely appreciated.​

You clearly care deeply about chronology and the integrity of the text, and I respect that.
Let me address your points carefully and biblically.

1. About the 360-day year​

You have argued strongly that the Bible uses a 360-day year, based on:

• Genesis 7–8
• Jubilees
• Revelation 11–12

These examples do show the prophetic calendar using round 30-day months, especially in apocalyptic literature.

However, the question is:
Does Daniel 9 require a 360-day year?
The answer is no, because Daniel 9 never assigns any days, only:

שָׁבֻעִים – “weeks / units of seven”​

The Hebrew term means “sevens” not days, not lunar months, not solar years.
There is zero linguistic requirement for 360-day years in Daniel 9.
Most Jewish interpreters from antiquity (including Josephus, Philo, early rabbis) treated the 70 weeks figuratively or symbolically not as exact-day mathematical calculations.
So:
✔️ 360-day prophetic calendar exists
❌ but Daniel 9 doesn’t mandate it.
This means the conversion math may be interesting, but the text doesn’t require it.

2. About the decree date: 445/444 BC vs. 457 BC​

You argued strongly for a Nehemiah 2 (445–444 BC) decree.
That is a valid view many dispensational scholars hold it.
But the Hebrew wording in Daniel 9:25 says:

מִן־מֹצָא דָבָר לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם​

“From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem”
The key word is:

לְהָשִׁיב – “to restore” (not just rebuild walls)​

Ezra 7 (457 BC) is the only decree that:

• restores Jewish law
• restores autonomy
• restores worship
• restores judicial authority
• restores the temple economy

Nehemiah’s decree (444 BC) does not restore it only repairs the walls.
So historically and textually:
✔️ 445 BC is possible
✔️ 457 BC is linguistically stronger
This is why most classical and Jewish scholars use 457 BC, not 444 BC.

3. About the math leading to 20 AD or 18 AD crucifixion​

Dear Brother, you are honest enough to admit your calculations were changing.
That alone shows your sincerity.

Let me lovingly say this:

If the math produces an impossible crucifixion year, that means the system not the Bible is flawed.​

The Bible is consistent.

• Jesus’ ministry begins in “the 15th year of Tiberius” (Luke 3:1) → 27/28 AD
• Jesus is “about 30” at that time (Luke 3:23)
• Passover crucifixion fits 30–33 AD astronomically

Anything earlier (18–25 AD) simply does not match the New Testament.

So any chronological system that pushes the crucifixion earlier than 30 AD is mathematically elegant, but biblically impossible.
This is the problem with forcing 360-day conversions on a text that never requires them.

4. “2 Thessalonians 2 happened in 70 AD”​

Paul says the man of lawlessness:

• exalts himself as God (2 Thess 2:4)
• sits in the temple of God
• performs false signs and wonders (2 Thess 2:9)

Josephus records:
❌ No individual claiming to be God
❌ No supernatural signs
❌ No global deception
❌ No covenant with many (Dan 9:27)
❌ No stopping of sacrifices by a false messiah
❌ No “breath of the Lord destroying him” (2 Thess 2:8)

So respectfully,
70 AD simply does not match Paul’s description.
Paul also wrote 2 Thess before 70 AD and said:

“Do not think the Day of the Lord has come.”
(2 Thess 2:2)

So Paul contradicts the idea that 70 AD fulfills the passage.

5. “All of Matthew 24 happened in 70 AD”​

Jesus says:

• the gospel will be preached to all nations (Matt 24:14) not completed in 70 AD
• the sun and moon will be darkened (24:29) did not happen
• tribulation such as never was or never will be (24:21) WWII exceeded 70 AD
• they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds (24:30) did not occur
• angels gathering the elect (24:31) no record of this event

This cannot be compressed into 70 AD.
Jesus clearly divides:

1. Local signs (70 AD) Luke 21
2. Global final signs (end times) Matthew 24

6. “Revelation was written in 41 AD”​

There is zero historical evidence for a 41 AD date.
All early Church fathers agree:

• Irenaeus (AD 180)
• Clement of Alexandria
• Origen
• Victorinus
• Eusebius

all testify Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian (81–96 AD).
There is no manuscript
no commentary
no Greek tradition
no early writer
no historian
that places Revelation in 41 AD.
So that part of your system is historically unsupported.

7. “The final 7 years were 63–70 AD”​

Daniel 9:27 says the one who makes the covenant:

• strengthens a covenant with many
• stops sacrifices
• sets up an abomination
• is destroyed at the consummation

Nothing in 63–70 AD fits that complete sequence.
The Zealots stopping sacrifices was:

• not covenant-related
• not done by a single ruler
• not accompanied by abomination signs
• not followed by the ruler’s destruction
• not followed by everlasting righteousness (9:24)

Back to the Topic: Does Daniel 9 support a dual 70-week structure?​

Yes! because:

1. The Hebrew word נֶחְתַּךְ (“divided out, cut off”)​

allows sequential “divisions” of time.

2. The structure of the prophecy is chiastic​

A–B–C–D–C’–B’–A’

3. There is a clear gap after the 69th week (Dan 9:26)​

4. Jesus places part of Daniel 9 in the future (Matt 24:15)​

5. Paul places elements of Daniel 9 in the future (2 Thess 2)​

6. John places elements of Daniel 9 in the future (Rev 11–13)​

Thus:
✔️ A dual-layer fulfillment fits both the textual grammar and the biblical canon.


Blessings Dear Brother

 

[samaus123456789]

There are

Dear Brother, thank you for all three replies your effort, calculations, and desire for accuracy are genuinely appreciated.​

You clearly care deeply about chronology and the integrity of the text, and I respect that.
Let me address your points carefully and biblically.

1. About the 360-day year​

You have argued strongly that the Bible uses a 360-day year, based on:

• Genesis 7–8
• Jubilees
• Revelation 11–12

These examples do show the prophetic calendar using round 30-day months, especially in apocalyptic literature.

However, the question is:
Does Daniel 9 require a 360-day year?
The answer is no, because Daniel 9 never assigns any days, only:

שָׁבֻעִים – “weeks / units of seven”​

The Hebrew term means “sevens” not days, not lunar months, not solar years.
There is zero linguistic requirement for 360-day years in Daniel 9.
Most Jewish interpreters from antiquity (including Josephus, Philo, early rabbis) treated the 70 weeks figuratively or symbolically not as exact-day mathematical calculations.
So:
✔️ 360-day prophetic calendar exists
❌ but Daniel 9 doesn’t mandate it.
This means the conversion math may be interesting, but the text doesn’t require it.

2. About the decree date: 445/444 BC vs. 457 BC​

You argued strongly for a Nehemiah 2 (445–444 BC) decree.
That is a valid view many dispensational scholars hold it.
But the Hebrew wording in Daniel 9:25 says:

מִן־מֹצָא דָבָר לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם​

“From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem”
The key word is:

לְהָשִׁיב – “to restore” (not just rebuild walls)​

Ezra 7 (457 BC) is the only decree that:

• restores Jewish law
• restores autonomy
• restores worship
• restores judicial authority
• restores the temple economy

Nehemiah’s decree (444 BC) does not restore it only repairs the walls.
So historically and textually:
✔️ 445 BC is possible
✔️ 457 BC is linguistically stronger
This is why most classical and Jewish scholars use 457 BC, not 444 BC.

3. About the math leading to 20 AD or 18 AD crucifixion​

Dear Brother, you are honest enough to admit your calculations were changing.
That alone shows your sincerity.

Let me lovingly say this:

If the math produces an impossible crucifixion year, that means the system not the Bible is flawed.​

The Bible is consistent.

• Jesus’ ministry begins in “the 15th year of Tiberius” (Luke 3:1) → 27/28 AD
• Jesus is “about 30” at that time (Luke 3:23)
• Passover crucifixion fits 30–33 AD astronomically

Anything earlier (18–25 AD) simply does not match the New Testament.

So any chronological system that pushes the crucifixion earlier than 30 AD is mathematically elegant, but biblically impossible.
This is the problem with forcing 360-day conversions on a text that never requires them.

4. “2 Thessalonians 2 happened in 70 AD”​

Paul says the man of lawlessness:

• exalts himself as God (2 Thess 2:4)
• sits in the temple of God
• performs false signs and wonders (2 Thess 2:9)

Josephus records:
❌ No individual claiming to be God
❌ No supernatural signs
❌ No global deception
❌ No covenant with many (Dan 9:27)
❌ No stopping of sacrifices by a false messiah
❌ No “breath of the Lord destroying him” (2 Thess 2:8)

So respectfully,
70 AD simply does not match Paul’s description.
Paul also wrote 2 Thess before 70 AD and said:


So Paul contradicts the idea that 70 AD fulfills the passage.

5. “All of Matthew 24 happened in 70 AD”​

Jesus says:

• the gospel will be preached to all nations (Matt 24:14) not completed in 70 AD
• the sun and moon will be darkened (24:29) did not happen
• tribulation such as never was or never will be (24:21) WWII exceeded 70 AD
• they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds (24:30) did not occur
• angels gathering the elect (24:31) no record of this event

This cannot be compressed into 70 AD.
Jesus clearly divides:

1. Local signs (70 AD) Luke 21
2. Global final signs (end times) Matthew 24

6. “Revelation was written in 41 AD”​

There is zero historical evidence for a 41 AD date.
All early Church fathers agree:

• Irenaeus (AD 180)
• Clement of Alexandria
• Origen
• Victorinus
• Eusebius

all testify Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian (81–96 AD).
There is no manuscript
no commentary
no Greek tradition
no early writer
no historian
that places Revelation in 41 AD.
So that part of your system is historically unsupported.

7. “The final 7 years were 63–70 AD”​

Daniel 9:27 says the one who makes the covenant:

• strengthens a covenant with many
• stops sacrifices
• sets up an abomination
• is destroyed at the consummation

Nothing in 63–70 AD fits that complete sequence.
The Zealots stopping sacrifices was:

• not covenant-related
• not done by a single ruler
• not accompanied by abomination signs
• not followed by the ruler’s destruction
• not followed by everlasting righteousness (9:24)

Back to the Topic: Does Daniel 9 support a dual 70-week structure?​

Yes! because:

1. The Hebrew word נֶחְתַּךְ (“divided out, cut off”)​

allows sequential “divisions” of time.

2. The structure of the prophecy is chiastic​

A–B–C–D–C’–B’–A’

3. There is a clear gap after the 69th week (Dan 9:26)​

4. Jesus places part of Daniel 9 in the future (Matt 24:15)​

5. Paul places elements of Daniel 9 in the future (2 Thess 2)​

6. John places elements of Daniel 9 in the future (Rev 11–13)​

Thus:
✔️ A dual-layer fulfillment fits both the textual grammar and the biblical canon.


Blessings Dear Brother

457BC, and 444 BC both have problems. It was going to be 49 years until the city was rebuilt. The decree given 445 BC was only for the walls ,and they rebuilt them in 52 days (Nehemiah 4) so by 445 BC the whole city had been rebuilt. 445-49=396 BC, 457- 49 = 408 BC but again everything was rebuilt by 445 BC. If 445 BC was the end of 49 years then it means "the decree" went out 49 years earlier 494 BC but then that poses problems for the crucifixion date. If you use an earlier decree of Cyrus or Darius it causes even worse problems for the crucifixion date. So.... the archaeological dates appear to be wrong. It might be easier to date the crucifixion using NT sources like you did then work backwards.


2 Thessalonians 2 meant the physical standing temple at the time that had the holy spirit in it. This ceased to exist 70 AD. The prophecy is set within the first century. It happened before 70 AD.

All of Math 24 happened 70 AD. See the thread on Enoch, and Jude I made. Jude, and 1 Enoch
Revelation was written 41 AD. Paul in 2 Corinthians 55 AD said he knew someone 14 years earlier caught up to heaven that saw things that can't be written which is what happens to John in Revelation; an angel tells him don't write some things down. Paul doesn't say it was the author of Revelation he is talking about because he does not want to boast. Internally in Rev 11 the temple is still standing, and being destroyed, and Daniel 9 which ended 70 AD said vision, and prophecy would stop 70 AD, and Revelation contains vision, and prophecy. I reject external evidence if it conflicts with inspired scripture therefore I reject apocryphal acts of John (150 AD), and Irenaeus (180 AD) that say Revelation was written in the 90s AD under Domitian.
63-70 AD was the final 7. Eleazar Ben Hanania stops the daily sacrifice in the temple 66 AD that the Judeans had been doing for the Romans (not the torah ones) [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing off the Romans, and starting the Judean Roman wars. The torah ones stopped 70 AD due to no one do do them. It is referring to these daily sacrifices Exodus 29.38-43; Numbers 28:1-8 Leviticus 6.8-13. When the daily sacrifice stops in Dan8, and 11, and someone puts up an abomination of desolation in the temple that was about Maccabees, and Antiochus 4 when he stopped the animal sacrifices, and put a greek god statue in the temple so when Dan 9 uses the same language it is about stopping sacrifices in the temple, and someone putting a statue in it around 70 AD. It is not about Jesus holding up the cup, and saying this is the new covenant, and he did not put a statue in the temple. I will make another post about the problems with the Daniel decree numbers.

 

[pastorwaris]

There are

457BC, and 444 BC both have problems. It was going to be 49 years until the city was rebuilt. The decree given 445 BC was only for the walls ,and they rebuilt them in 52 days (Nehemiah 4) so by 445 BC the whole city had been rebuilt. 445-49=396 BC, 457- 49 = 408 BC but again everything was rebuilt by 445 BC. If 445 BC was the end of 49 years then it means "the decree" went out 49 years earlier 494 BC but then that poses problems for the crucifixion date. If you use an earlier decree of Cyrus or Darius it causes even worse problems for the crucifixion date. So.... the archaeological dates appear to be wrong. It might be easier to date the crucifixion using NT sources like you did then work backwards.


2 Thessalonians 2 meant the physical standing temple at the time that had the holy spirit in it. This ceased to exist 70 AD. The prophecy is set within the first century. It happened before 70 AD.

All of Math 24 happened 70 AD. See the thread on Enoch, and Jude I made. Jude, and 1 Enoch
Revelation was written 41 AD. Paul in 2 Corinthians 55 AD said he knew someone 14 years earlier caught up to heaven that saw things that can't be written which is what happens to John in Revelation; an angel tells him don't write some things down. Paul doesn't say it was the author of Revelation he is talking about because he does not want to boast. Internally in Rev 11 the temple is still standing, and being destroyed, and Daniel 9 which ended 70 AD said vision, and prophecy would stop 70 AD, and Revelation contains vision, and prophecy. I reject external evidence if it conflicts with inspired scripture therefore I reject apocryphal acts of John (150 AD), and Irenaeus (180 AD) that say Revelation was written in the 90s AD under Domitian.
63-70 AD was the final 7. Eleazar Ben Hanania stops the daily sacrifice in the temple 66 AD that the Judeans had been doing for the Romans (not the torah ones) [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing off the Romans, and starting the Judean Roman wars. The torah ones stopped 70 AD due to no one do do them. It is referring to these daily sacrifices Exodus 29.38-43; Numbers 28:1-8 Leviticus 6.8-13. When the daily sacrifice stops in Dan8, and 11, and someone puts up an abomination of desolation in the temple that was about Maccabees, and Antiochus 4 when he stopped the animal sacrifices, and put a greek god statue in the temple so when Dan 9 uses the same language it is about stopping sacrifices in the temple, and someone putting a statue in it around 70 AD. It is not about Jesus holding up the cup, and saying this is the new covenant, and he did not put a statue in the temple. I will make another post about the problems with the Daniel decree numbers.

Dear Brother, Thank you for the reply and wonderful interest in history and deeply study to understand deeply the word of God. I want to give response point by point of your response.

1) On 457, 445/444, 494 BC and the “49 years”​

You’re right to press this hard, the decree issue is the single most contentious hinge in Daniel studies.

• Daniel 9:25 speaks of “seven sevens and sixty-two sevens” (שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם). Many interpreters read the “seven sevens” (49 years) as a phrase expecting a building phase. That’s a legitimate reading.
• Nehemiah 2 (20th year of Artaxerxes) (commonly dated ~445/444 BC) is a decree that focuses on the walls (Ne 2), and Nehemiah reports the walls rebuilt in a short time (Ne 6:15 says 52 days). That strongly supports the view that the walls were repaired quickly after Nehemiah’s mission.
• Ezra 7 (457 BC), by contrast, is a broader decree with restoration language (including re-establishing temple services, the law, and community life). Daniel’s phrase מִן-מֹצָא דָּבָר לְהָשִׁיב וּלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם “from the issuing of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem” can be read as pointing to a restoration decree (Ezra) rather than a narrow wall decree.

So your observation is historically exact: if one treats Nehemiah’s decree as the starting point, the math and the meaning of “seven sevens” need careful handling. If the walls were rebuilt by 445, then the 49-year expectation must be read differently (e.g., the 49 years could refer to complete civil/ritual restoration rather than walls alone). That’s why scholars disagree: different decrees produce different chronologies.

Bottom line: You’re right to point out the tension. It’s honest to say no decree candidate is problem-free. The best way forward is to test each decree (Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes 7/Ezra 457, Artaxerxes 20/Nehemiah 445) against (a) Daniel’s Hebrew wording, (b) what the decree actually authorized, and (c) the NT data about Jesus’ ministry.

2) On using New Testament anchors (dating the crucifixion and working backward)​

That is a very practical and scriptural method. The Gospels give multiple synchronisms:

• John places Jesus’ ministry around the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1 context), and Luke indicates Jesus was “about thirty” when he began (Luke 3:23).
• The synoptic chronology, passion narratives, and Passover timing converge on c. 30–33 AD as the plausible window for the crucifixion.

So yes ! using the NT first to set the crucifixion window, then testing which decree and calendar system best lines up with that window, is a sensible hermeneutical strategy. If a particular decree + calendar forces a crucifixion year outside 30–33 AD, that’s a strong strike against that option.

3) On 360-day prophetic years and the calendar question​

You rightly point to several texts that use symbolic/360-day reckoning (e.g., Revelation’s 1,260 days / 42 months / 3½ years). The prophetic calendar is a real phenomenon in apocalyptic literature.
Important cautions:

• Daniel 9 does not use days, it uses שָׁבֻעִים (“weeks” = sevens). The text itself does not specify how many days to a prophetic year. Applying a 360-day year is interpretive rather than mandated by Daniel’s Hebrew.
• If you choose to convert 483 “years” into 360-day prophetic years the arithmetic will shift the resulting AD date (as interlocutors showed). That arithmetic can be done, but it’s a hermeneutical option, not a textual requirement.

So your approach is consistent and defensible if you explicitly state you are imposing a prophetic/360-day year on Daniel. The critics’ pushback is mostly that Daniel’s language doesn’t compel that move.

4) On Eleazar ben Hanania (stopping sacrifices) and the 63–70 AD final week​

You’re right: Josephus records that the zealots interfered with sacrificial practice and that the Jewish War disrupted regular temple service (see Josephus, The Jewish War). That event is a plausible historical candidate for a “stopping of sacrifices” in a historical fulfillment sense.

But a few clarifications:

• In Daniel’s context (and classical interpretation of v.27), the figure who “makes a covenant with many” and then “puts an end to sacrifice and offering” sounds like a centralized ruler who asserts authority and sets up an abomination. Antiochus IV (the Maccabean type) fits that mold historically for Dan 8/11; some interpreters see a Roman/antichristic figure in v.27.
• Eleazar/the Zealots stopping sacrifices is better read as internal cessation (a breakdown caused by factional Jewish action during the revolt) rather than an external ruler imposing an abomination. That’s why many see 66–70 AD as a partial, typological fulfillment (a local realization of the pattern), but not the complete fulfillment of the covenant-making/abomination language that Daniel 9:27 seems to require.
• In short: 66–70 AD is important and typological, but the full suite of Daniel 9:27 details (covenant with many, abomination, global consequences, consummation) are not exhaustively matched by the Zealot activity recorded by Josephus.

5) On Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2 and the scope of fulfillment​

You assert strongly that Matthew 24 and 2 Thess 2 are fulfilled in AD 70. That is a legitimate preterist position (especially full preterism or classical preterism). A few balanced observations:

• Partial/preterist readings: Many elements of Jesus’ Olivet discourse refer to the coming destruction of the Temple and the judgment on Jerusalem (AD 70). Jesus uses that event as a type or foreshadow of the final Day of the Lord.
• Futurist/continued-fulfillment readings: Other elements in Matthew 24 (cosmic signs, Son of Man coming, angelic gathering) are read by many as future or multiple-stage fulfillments. That is why NT writers (Paul, John) still speak of future events in terms similar to Daniel’s.

So your claim that “all of Matthew 24 happened 70 AD” is a strongly held interpretive stance with good internal logic but it’s not the only biblical reading. It’s important to show which verses you take as strictly AD-70 and which you allow to have a future or double application.

6) On the date of Revelation​

You reject the late date (Domitianic 90s AD) and favor an early date (you said 41 AD). Two notes:

• Almost all patristic testimony and early tradition assign Revelation to the Domitianic period (c. 95 AD). Fathers like Irenaeus explicitly connect it to Domitian’s time. That’s why critical scholarship overwhelmingly favors the 90s dating.
• An early date (c. 60s or earlier) is a minority position; a 41 AD date has virtually no attestation in early tradition and raises serious problems with the John authorship and the book’s relationship to later persecution imagery.

If you choose an early date, you must wrestle with the external testimony of the early church and with internal indicators such as the state of the seven churches and the references to an existing imperial cult. It’s not impossible to argue early, but it is a heavy revision of patristic consensus.

7) On “vision & prophecy sealed up by 70 AD”​

You cite Daniel 9:24 (the vision being sealed) and propose the sealing is accomplished in AD 70. Some remarks:

• Daniel himself is told the vision will be sealed until the time of the end (Dan 12:4,9). Many read “sealed” as meaning sealed in part kept until later clarity rather than “completely stopped and never to be opened again.”
• The NT (Jesus, Paul, John) continues to use Danielic language after AD 70, which suggests that even if AD 70 realized certain patterns, the biblical canon continues to interpret and expand Danielic themes. That argues for continuing rather than final sealing.

Blessings
Pastor Waris

 

[samaus123456789]

Yeh there is problems with the 49 years in Dan 9. Revelation was written pre 70 ad i have a post on it.
More on the 49 years from chat gpt

but the walls and gates appear to be fully finished in nehemiah 12 which is no later than the 32nd year of Artaxerxes which is far less than 49 years starting at the decree in nehemiah 2 or ezra 7
ChatGPT said:

You’ve spotted something important — if the 49 years (the 7 sevens) must be the entire period of rebuilding Jerusalem, then:

• Nehemiah’s wall repair (445 BC) AND Ezra’s reforms (458 BC) finish FAR too quickly to fill a 49-year period.
  This means Daniel is NOT describing Nehemiah’s wall project at all, because Nehemiah finishes the walls in 52 days, not decades.
  Let’s walk through the logic carefully so you can see exactly what the text requires and what it cannot mean.

⭐ 1. THE DANIEL 9:25 REQUIREMENT​

Daniel says:

“From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem
until [the next phase],
there will be seven sevens (49 years).
The city will be rebuilt with streets and trenches,
in times of trouble.”
This means:
✔ The decree → begins a 49-year rebuilding period
✔ During that period: streets, public squares, defensive trench/moat, full city infrastructure are restored over many decades.
Daniel’s wording demands a long, drawn-out city-rebuilding era.

⭐ 2. BUT NEHEMIAH’S WALL PROJECT IS TOO FAST​

Nehemiah 6:15 says:

“So the wall was finished… in 52 days.”
Even if we stretch everything:

• Neh 2 → Neh 12 occurs within 1–2 years, not 49.
• Neh 13 happens in Artaxerxes’ 32nd year, 12 years after Neh 2.
  Still nowhere close to 49 years.
  ✔ Nehemiah cannot fulfill the 49 years. He is too fast.

⭐ 3. EZRA’S ARRIVAL ALSO DOES NOT WORK​

Ezra 7 occurs in the 7th year of Artaxerxes (458 BC).
Ezra’s reforms take:

• A few months for the journey
• A few months for the investigation
• A few years of teaching
  Nowhere near 49 years.
  ✔ Ezra also cannot fulfill the 7 sevens.

⭐ 4. CONCLUSION: THE 49 YEARS MUST BE A DIFFERENT PERIOD ENTIRELY​

Nehemiah & Ezra do not rebuild Jerusalem for 49 years.
They rebuild: the wall, gates, some houses, the Temple administration, the community covenant — but Daniel’s 49 years describe much more:
⭐ A full civic reconstruction of Jerusalem itself, not just walls.
Ezra and Nehemiah only restore: the Temple system, the walls, a small population core, basic civic order.
Nehemiah expressly says:

“the city was large and spacious, but the people were few in it.” (Neh 7:4)
Even late in Nehemiah’s life, the city is not fully rebuilt, populated, or restored as Daniel describes.

⭐ 5. WHAT 49-YEAR PERIOD DOES FIT DANIEL 9:25?​

There are only two periods in the Persian era that actually took ~49 years to restore Jerusalem as a functioning city:

OPTION A​

From Cyrus’ decree (538 BC) → completion of full post-exilic restoration
Here’s the timeline under Cyrus → Darius:

• 538 BC — decree to return
• 537 BC — altar rebuilt
• 536 BC — foundations laid
• 520 BC — Haggai & Zechariah restart the work
• 516 BC — Temple finished
• Late 500s–480s — city slowly repopulates, walls partially repaired, governance restored (full civic restoration takes decades)
  Cyrus’ decree in 538 BC + 49 years = 489 BC
  This lands near the time Jerusalem’s population, civic life, elders, priests, and judges finally stabilize.
  ✔ This period actually is 49 years of difficult rebuilding.
  ✔ This matches Daniel’s “times of trouble” — constant enemies & opposition.
  ✔ This is LONG before Ezra–Nehemiah.

OPTION B​

From Darius’ decree (520 BC) → completion of Jerusalem’s rebuilding
Haggai 1–2 and Ezra 5–6 describe Darius strengthening the decree to rebuild.
If we start in 520 BC:
520 BC + 49 years = 471 BC
By this time: the Temple is finished, the city is functioning, governance is stable, priestly and scribal administration is restored, population has increased, defenses repaired (long before Nehemiah’s day).
✔ Again — this is a true multi-decade rebuild.
✔ And long before Nehemiah.

⭐ 6. WHY THE 49 YEARS CANNOT START WITH ARTAXERXES’ DECREES​

Here is the core problem:
➤ Artaxerxes’ 7th year (Ezra 7) = 458 BC
458 + 49 = 409 BC
But by 408 BC, the Elephantine papyri show: Jerusalem already functioning, Sanballat & Johanan established, high priesthood stable, Temple operating, Persian governors in place.
There is no 49-year rebuilding period after Ezra.
➤ Artaxerxes’ 20th year (Nehemiah 2) = 445 BC
445 + 49 = 396 BC
But: the walls already done in 52 days, Nehemiah left office in 433 BC, Johanan is high priest by 408 BC, nothing in 445–396 BC fits a 49-year reconstruction phase.
The city is already rebuilt and functioning decades BEFORE 396 BC.

⭐ 7. THE ONLY LOGICAL TEXT-BASED CONCLUSION​

Daniel’s 49 years (7 sevens) describe the entire Persian-era rebuilding process that began under Cyrus and Darius — NOT the short repairs of Ezra or Nehemiah.
✔ Nehemiah’s walls do not take 49 years
✔ Ezra’s reforms do not take 49 years
✔ The city is fully functioning long before 49 years after Nehemiah
Therefore:
⭐ Daniel’s 49 years belong to an earlier phase of the Persian restoration — beginning with Cyrus or Darius, not Artaxerxes.

Problem is in the solutions chat GPT provided the walls are not rebuilt which is not until 445 BC nor have the Levites come back yet which is around the same time or a bit later. Using Nehemiah 2 decree 20th year artaxerxes 445 bc , and 360 day years it gets the crucifixion to 33 ad but it means some part of the restoration and rebuilding process was not complete until 395 bc which contradicts nehemiah 12 where all the levites come back from babylon and pray over the walls which at latest is only 12 years after nehemiah 2 (nehemiah 13 is 32nd year of artaxerxes) . and using 540 bc or 520 bc does not get anywhere near AD times for the crucifixion or 70 ad. so there are some problems.


Check out how vaticanus from 350 ad renders daniel 9 Textual Variants Daniel’s 70 weeks, Susanna, Prayer of Hananiah, Bel and the dragon he has other bible versions of it listed there too

I don't know which reading of Dan 9 is closest to the original therefore it makes it very hard to know exactly what the original prophecy language it was and near impossible to reconcile it with internal dates of ezra nehemiah and archaeology

​

 

[GloryToHisName]

Yeh there is problems with the 49 years in Dan 9. Revelation was written pre 70 ad i have a post on it.
More on the 49 years from chat gpt

but the walls and gates appear to be fully finished in nehemiah 12 which is no later than the 32nd year of Artaxerxes which is far less than 49 years starting at the decree in nehemiah 2 or ezra 7
ChatGPT said:

You’ve spotted something important — if the 49 years (the 7 sevens) must be the entire period of rebuilding Jerusalem, then:

• Nehemiah’s wall repair (445 BC) AND Ezra’s reforms (458 BC) finish FAR too quickly to fill a 49-year period.
  This means Daniel is NOT describing Nehemiah’s wall project at all, because Nehemiah finishes the walls in 52 days, not decades.
  Let’s walk through the logic carefully so you can see exactly what the text requires and what it cannot mean.

⭐ 1. THE DANIEL 9:25 REQUIREMENT​

Daniel says:

⭐ 2. BUT NEHEMIAH’S WALL PROJECT IS TOO FAST​

Nehemiah 6:15 says:

• Neh 2 → Neh 12 occurs within 1–2 years, not 49.
• Neh 13 happens in Artaxerxes’ 32nd year, 12 years after Neh 2.
  Still nowhere close to 49 years.
  ✔ Nehemiah cannot fulfill the 49 years. He is too fast.

⭐ 3. EZRA’S ARRIVAL ALSO DOES NOT WORK​

Ezra 7 occurs in the 7th year of Artaxerxes (458 BC).
Ezra’s reforms take:

• A few months for the journey
• A few months for the investigation
• A few years of teaching
  Nowhere near 49 years.
  ✔ Ezra also cannot fulfill the 7 sevens.

⭐ 4. CONCLUSION: THE 49 YEARS MUST BE A DIFFERENT PERIOD ENTIRELY​

Nehemiah & Ezra do not rebuild Jerusalem for 49 years.
They rebuild: the wall, gates, some houses, the Temple administration, the community covenant — but Daniel’s 49 years describe much more:
⭐ A full civic reconstruction of Jerusalem itself, not just walls.
Ezra and Nehemiah only restore: the Temple system, the walls, a small population core, basic civic order.
Nehemiah expressly says:

⭐ 5. WHAT 49-YEAR PERIOD DOES FIT DANIEL 9:25?​

There are only two periods in the Persian era that actually took ~49 years to restore Jerusalem as a functioning city:

OPTION A​

From Cyrus’ decree (538 BC) → completion of full post-exilic restoration
Here’s the timeline under Cyrus → Darius:

• 538 BC — decree to return
• 537 BC — altar rebuilt
• 536 BC — foundations laid
• 520 BC — Haggai & Zechariah restart the work
• 516 BC — Temple finished
• Late 500s–480s — city slowly repopulates, walls partially repaired, governance restored (full civic restoration takes decades)
  Cyrus’ decree in 538 BC + 49 years = 489 BC
  This lands near the time Jerusalem’s population, civic life, elders, priests, and judges finally stabilize.
  ✔ This period actually is 49 years of difficult rebuilding.
  ✔ This matches Daniel’s “times of trouble” — constant enemies & opposition.
  ✔ This is LONG before Ezra–Nehemiah.

OPTION B​

From Darius’ decree (520 BC) → completion of Jerusalem’s rebuilding
Haggai 1–2 and Ezra 5–6 describe Darius strengthening the decree to rebuild.
If we start in 520 BC:
520 BC + 49 years = 471 BC
By this time: the Temple is finished, the city is functioning, governance is stable, priestly and scribal administration is restored, population has increased, defenses repaired (long before Nehemiah’s day).
✔ Again — this is a true multi-decade rebuild.
✔ And long before Nehemiah.

⭐ 6. WHY THE 49 YEARS CANNOT START WITH ARTAXERXES’ DECREES​

Here is the core problem:
➤ Artaxerxes’ 7th year (Ezra 7) = 458 BC
458 + 49 = 409 BC
But by 408 BC, the Elephantine papyri show: Jerusalem already functioning, Sanballat & Johanan established, high priesthood stable, Temple operating, Persian governors in place.
There is no 49-year rebuilding period after Ezra.
➤ Artaxerxes’ 20th year (Nehemiah 2) = 445 BC
445 + 49 = 396 BC
But: the walls already done in 52 days, Nehemiah left office in 433 BC, Johanan is high priest by 408 BC, nothing in 445–396 BC fits a 49-year reconstruction phase.
The city is already rebuilt and functioning decades BEFORE 396 BC.

⭐ 7. THE ONLY LOGICAL TEXT-BASED CONCLUSION​

Daniel’s 49 years (7 sevens) describe the entire Persian-era rebuilding process that began under Cyrus and Darius — NOT the short repairs of Ezra or Nehemiah.
✔ Nehemiah’s walls do not take 49 years
✔ Ezra’s reforms do not take 49 years
✔ The city is fully functioning long before 49 years after Nehemiah
Therefore:
⭐ Daniel’s 49 years belong to an earlier phase of the Persian restoration — beginning with Cyrus or Darius, not Artaxerxes.

Problem is in the solutions chat GPT provided the walls are not rebuilt which is not until 445 BC nor have the Levites come back yet which is around the same time or a bit later. Using Nehemiah 2 decree 20th year artaxerxes 445 bc , and 360 day years it gets the crucifixion to 33 ad but it means some part of the restoration and rebuilding process was not complete until 395 bc which contradicts nehemiah 12 where all the levites come back from babylon and pray over the walls which at latest is only 12 years after nehemiah 2 (nehemiah 13 is 32nd year of artaxerxes) . and using 540 bc or 520 bc does not get anywhere near AD times for the crucifixion or 70 ad. so there are some problems.​

​

​

Check out how vaticanus from 350 ad renders daniel 9 Textual Variants Daniel’s 70 weeks, Susanna, Prayer of Hananiah, Bel and the dragon he has other bible versions of it listed there too​

​

I don't know which reading of Dan 9 is closest to the original therefore it makes it very hard to know exactly what the original prophecy language it was and near impossible to reconcile it with internal dates of ezra nehemiah and archaeology​

​

​

Daniel 9:25 — Interpreting “Messiah the Prince”

The phrase “the Messiah the Prince” in Daniel 9:25 is intentionally multilevel in meaning. When the seventy weeks are read as divided into two 70 week cycles within the text itself, the Hebrew grammar allows the title to operate simultaneously on Messianic, historical, and dual-cycle levels without contradiction.


---

Daniel 9:25 — Translation

> “Know and understand from the going forth of the word to **build** and **restore** Jerusalem for an anointed one and a ruler, seven sevens; weeks 60, the second; and again it shall be returned and built, with anguish and diligence in its streets in those times.”




---

Hebrew Nuance — נָגִיד וּמָשִׁיחַ

The phrase נָגִיד וּמָשִׁיחַ (nagid u-mashiach) permits two grammatical readings:

1) Single figure — Anointed Ruler
A unified King-Priest typology: mashiach (anointed one) + nagid (ruler).

2) Two figures — Anointed One and Ruler
The conjunction וּ (“and”) allows distinction of roles.
Daniel 9:26 confirms this separation:

> “The people of the ruler who is to come…”



Thus the Ruler is distinguishable from the Anointed One in the prophetic flow.


---

Three-Layer Structure

Messianic Layer

Christ fulfills both titles in unity:

Anointed One — Messiah

Ruler — King


The prophecy centers on His appearing within the first cycle and His authority extending beyond it.


---

Dual-Cycle Layer

Daniel 9:24 declares:

> “Seventy weeks are divided out” (נֶחְתַּךְ)



This verb indicates partition, not a single uninterrupted span.

Daniel 9:25 includes the internal marker:

> Weeks 60, the second (שָׁבוּעַ 60 הַשֵּׁנִי)



This identifies the 60th week within the second cycle, not the beginning of it. The second cycle therefore begins earlier and advances toward that marker.

Under this reading:

First 70 week cycle culminates in Christ as the anointed ruler, starting from the *building*.

Second 70 week cycle begins with the **restoration** of Jerusalem under Suleiman as the ruler in (1542). (In the reading the anointed one is Christ and remains in the first 70)

Its 60th week corresponds to the modern return of Jerusalem.

Its final week concludes with the kingdom’s establishment.



---

Historical (Persian) Layer

The prophecy also functions inside Persian history:

Cyrus = Anointed One (Isaiah 45:1)

Artaxerxes = Ruler (nagid) issuing the command in Ezra-Nehemiah


Hebrew confirmation:

> מִן־מֹצָא דָבָר — “from the going forth of the word”



This phrase denotes divine authorization rather than a merely civil edict.


---

Timeline (Integrated)

First Cycle — Ancient Fulfillment

457 BC — Word goes forth (Artaxerxes)
7 weeks (49 yrs) → Jerusalem rebuilt under Nehemiah
62 weeks (434 yrs) → Messiah revealed
Final week: AD 26–33
 Mid-week: Christ crucified
AD 70 — City and Temple destroyed


---

Second Cycle — Restoration Pattern

1542 — Suleiman rebuilds Jerusalem walls
60th week reached — Jerusalem regained
Final week: 2025–2032
 Mid-week (3½ yrs): covenant broken, persecution intensifies
Kingdom consummated at the decreed end.

---

Structural Markers

Hebrew PhraseMeaning

נֶחְתַּךְDivided / apportioned
שָׁבוּעַ 60 הַשֵּׁנִי60th week of second cycle
וְחֲצִי הַשָּׁבוּעַMidpoint of final week
נָגִיד וּמָשִׁיחַUnified or dual subject
מִן־מֹצָא דָבָרDivine decree



---

Summary

LayerAnointed OneRulerFulfillment

MessianicChristChristEternal
Dual-CycleChristSuleimanRestoration
PersianCyrusArtaxerxesFoundation



---

Conclusion

Daniel 9:25 is deliberately multivalent. The Hebrew syntax permits singular or dual identity, the structure divides the weeks into cycles, and history confirms both. The prophecy unfolds in layers: Persian inauguration, Messianic fulfillment, and later restoration — culminating in the decreed end.

 

[samaus123456789]

It only had one fulfillment and ended 70-73 AD. The masoretic is probably the least closest to the original compared to the LXX too.

 

[GloryToHisName]

It only had one fulfillment and ended 70-73 AD. The masoretic is probably the least closest to the original compared to the LXX too.

The holy of holies was not anointed, and the kingdom was not established, so your view is missing alot of context, the anointing of the holy of holies and the age of righteousness are the climax of the second 70 weeks and the necessity for the prophecy to be fulfilled.

 

[samaus123456789]

The holy of holies was not anointed, and the kingdom was not established, so your view is missing alot of context, the anointing of the holy of holies and the age of righteousness are the climax of the second 70 weeks and the necessity for the prophecy to be fulfilled.

It was Jesus. 70 ad was the end of OT israel never to come back again

THE COMING PRINCE" - SIR ROBERT ANDERSON is a book online free about dan 9 explaining yes it was the nehemiah 2 decree​