"70 Weeks" of lunar years

P70,

You wrote: Thunder, you are smarter than this (you just have to be!)

Don't bet on it. Notice his words, "the date that the Lord chose to put in my hands." Like his fellow futurist "Postrib," he seems to believe he speaks both with and for God. And like Postrib, he strongly hints that God has also revealed to him the time of Christ's return. In another thread he told us quite plainly that he believes Christ will return 2,000 "prophetic years" after Christ's death, which "the Lord" supposedly told him took place in AD 32 (contrary to opinion of all New Testament scholars). 2,000 X 360 days = 1971 years. Now let's see. AD 32 + 1971 years = what? Do the math. After you do you wont want to make any plans next year which involve earthly pursuits.

I wonder why "the Lord" puts different dates "in the hands" of all of these nutcases. I don't know. But the Lord just told me not to waste any more of my time trying to have an intelligent conversation with such folks.

: The word for "seven" (shebuah) has for its root the word for "complete" (shaba), so that "weeks" may represent "completions," which may be years.

Rubbish!

Regarding shebua' Hebrew Lexicons tell us "This term occurs twenty-seven times in the Old Teastament, always indicating a period of seven. Indeed, the word obviously comes to us from shaba' (the numeral seven) and so, could literally be translated always as 'seven period.' " (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, volume II, page 899)

At times he Bible uses the number seven to symbolically picture spiritual completeness. That is a whole other story. this fact in no way indicates that the number seven refers to the completion of a year.

I have never heard of such a dreadful interpretation of the seventy weeks as that which Postrib is promoting.

All other futurists at least admit that the prophecy predicted the time of Christ's first coming. They say only the 70th seven year period of time is yet future. This interpretation allows them to use this prophecy to prove to non-Christians that Jesus was the Messiah. They do so by counting 69 sevens of years (483 years of some kind) from one of Artaxerxes' decrees and wind up at about the time of Jesus Christ.

But Postrib's interpretation say Daniel 9 has nothing to do with Christ's first coming. And really very little to do with his second coming. He says it really prophecies the coming of a false Messiah.

What a terrible waste of a great evangelistic resource! For nearly 2,000 years many Jews by reading this prophecy in their own inspired scriptures have become convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed their long awaited Messiah. Now Postrib would have us take this prophecy out of our list of proof texts that Jesus was the Christ and put it on the shelf while we wait for a false Christ to appear in the nation of Israel.

In the meantime crackpot Bible interpreters and date setting false prophets like Postrib will probably do more damage to the Church than any false Christs ever will.

RT wrote: Have you found any others that believe your Lunar nonsense?

Yes, as a matter of fact I have.

This information is for P70 and any other serious students of scripture and history who may be here.

I earlier quoted the Church father Julius Africanus supporting this understanding. When I did I also mentioned that several other commentators have since followed his thinking in this matter. These include several modern day Bible scholars. I mentioned the names of two highly credentialed and highly respected Bible scholars who I am now in contact with on this matter, Both of them believe as I do on this matter, with only slight differences.

Another author of a very important Christian book on Bible history and Bible prophecy has just informed me by E mail of what I think is a very exciting development in this way of understanding the scriptures. One that eliminates the problem of Nehemiah taking five years to get to Jerusalem.

He has just described to me in great detail how Artaxerxes did not gain legal control of Persia's throne until six years after the assassination of his father Xerxes. Because he did not, this Christian scholar maintains that Nehemiah did not count the first six years of Artaxerxes' reign during which its legality was being contested. He says that this was standard procedure in the way in which Bible writers counted the years of kings' reigns. He provided me strong evidence of this from the books of Kings and Chronicles.

If this is true, and from all the information I have just read it appears as if it probably is, then when Nehemiah referred to Artaxerxes' 20th year he would have been referring to the same year Josephus referred to when he told us Nehemiah came to Jerusalem in Artaxerxes' 25th year, 440 BC. (Josephus did not count Artaxerxes' first partial year of rule, as was then standard procedure by historians using the "accession year" system of reckoning.)

The information I have in front of me is very lengthy and contains extensive references from the works of several ancient historians. But I'll here give you the Readers Digest version.

Historians tell us that Artaxerxes came to the throne of Persia in August of 465 BC following the murder of his father Xerxes. To gain the throne for himself Artaxerxes and his supporters, the real murderers, blamed his father's murder on the rightful heir to the throne, his older brother crown prince Darius. They then had Darius unjustly executed. For the next six years Artaxerxes' legal right to rule Persia was hotly disputed. For all during that time, both Artaxerxes' other older brother Hyspases who was away governing the Persian Provence of Bactria at the time of his father's murder, and Xerxes own full brother, Achamenes, who was away governing Egypt at the time of his brother's murder, maintained that they held the legal right to Persia's throne. They also both had many supporters who agreed with them.

Not until 459 BC did Artaxerxes gain full unchallenged control of his empire. For it was in that year that Achamenes was killed in a battle in Egypt, and it was only shortly before then that Artaxerxes killed his older brother Hyspases in what historians call "the Bactrian revolt." Thus, it was in 459 BC, with both of Artaxerxes' legitimate rivals for Persia's throne out of the way, that Artaxerxes began his first year as Persia's unchallenged ruler.

Nehemiah serving at the King's court would have been aware of these legal matters which put the legality of the first six years of Artaxerxes' reign in question. Because Nehemiah, and other Bible writers who recorded chronological information, did not count years of a king's rule in which their right to rule was legally contested, this Christian Bible scholar maintains that Nehemiah would have counted 459 BC as Artaxerxes' first year as Persia's king. And since Nehemiah counted 459 BC as Artaxerxes' first year, he would have counted 440 as Artaxerxes' 20th year.

In other words, we have strong reason to believe that Nehemiah reckoned the reign of Artaxerxes differently than the way in which it was then commonly reckoned, the way in which Josephus' sources reckoned it, and the way in which it is commonly reckoned today. When Nehemiah wrote of Artaxerxes' "20th year" it appears he was probably not referring to the year 445 BC, as has long been thought, but to 440 BC, just as Josephus clearly was when he told us that Nehemiah came to Jerusalem in Artaxerxes' "25th year."

483 lunar years after 440 brings us to AD 29, the year Jesus became the Messiah.

This understanding will soon be published as part of a book dealing with several Bible prophecies. The author has asked me to keep his name, and some of the information he has shared with me confidential. However, he told me I could discuss the history of Artaxerxes reign, which I have here done, since that information is public knowledge and may be found in history books. I believe this author's upcoming work will help bring many to Christ. Though it won't make "futurists" very happy.

RT,

You asked: Do I sense a touch of hate in your tone??

Not for you. But for what you are doing. I know people whose lives were ruined because they believed men who claimed to know the time of Christ's return. They failed to get an education and made other very bad decisions based on their believing those who told them the world was soon going to end. Jesus said no one would know the time of his return. Folks like you and Postrib always say, "Well he didn't say we wouldn't know the year." And then time proves that folks like you and Postrib didn't know the year. In the mean time you hurt a lot of people and make Christianity look foolish to many others. I hate what you are doing.

RT,

I believe your heart is in the right place. So I certainly did not mean to critisize you personally. I am sorry for speaking so harshly to you. I should have said what I did in a kinder way. Please forgive me.

You speak of us being in "the last days." However, as you may be aware, the Bible uses those words to refer to the time period which began with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. ( Acts 2:17 and elsewhere) So of course I agree with you. We are living in the last days and have been for almost 2,000 years. Because we are, we should be living our lives fully prepared for the return of Christ.

However, when you post interpretations of scripture based on so-called "prophetic years," which may be a totally man made concept, and then strongly imply by that interpretation that Christ is returning next year, you may end up causing some gullible ones to take you quite seriously and make some very bad life decisions based on what you are saying. And you may also end up stumbling some who might have accepted Christ when they see your interpretation prove false, as I believe that it will.

Date setters have been going at it for 1969 years now. Every date they have ever set has, of course, been wrong. Date setting, based on personal interpretations of scripture, has always done much more harm than good. It would have been better if all date setters before you had simply said, "Christ may return tomorrow. So, let's live our lives like he will, but prepare for the future in case he does not."

I think you should be doing the same and staying away from date setting. I believe your "Christ will return 2,000 'prophetic years' from Christ's death" prediction will fail. And all you will have accomplished by having made it is created disappointment in those who took you seriously and made yourself and Christianity both look foolish to others. Possibly so foolish to some that they will not accept Christ as their Lord as a result of your actions. That's something I hope you will thnk about before you do anymore date setting.

By the way, when next year passes into history uneventfully, have you thought of a back up plan? The usual thing which date setters do, rather than admit they were wrong, is to say Christ did come as they said, but his coming was invisible. Then they say he is here judging the world invisibly for the next seven years, which seven years later turns into 40 years or "one generation of 70 or 80 years." I hope you dont do that. Its been done too many times before. The Millerites did it. The JWs did it. Others have done it. It has lost all credibility. Just admit you were wrong. OK?

RT,

I think I did misunderstand you. So, again I am sorry. I just read your opening post in your "My Deliverer is coming" thread again. In it you say that you believe that the Bible indicates Christ will return 2,000 "prophetic years" of 360 days each after his crucifixion. You also say you believe that Christ died in AD 32. When I first read that I skipped over part of it and grabbed my calculator. 2000 X 360 days = 720,000 days. 720,000 days divided by 365.25 days (the number of days in a solar year) = 1971.25 solar years. 1971 solar years after AD 32 = AD 2003. So I thought you were saying that Christ was returning next year. But then I read your post again and in it you said your calculations pointed to 1998, a year which has already past. So obviously you were saying it could be real soon now since by your calculations the time you figured for Christ's return is already past.

However, I think your math is wrong. Your method by my calculater says 2003. But, like I said, I don't buy the "prophetic year" business. I think there is no such thing in scripture. And Jesus died in 33, not 32. And 2,000 lunar years since AD 33 ran out long ago. So if you are right about the "two days" picturing a 2,000 year Church age, the only kind of years it could be picturing is solar years. So, I'd be looking forward to 2033 if I were you. Or maybe 2036, 2,000 years after the "70 weeks" ended in AD 36, when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles.

Oh, I forgot. You don't like that "70 weeks" interpretation. : )

In any case, hang in there bro. Our King is coming! Sooner or later. : )

RT,

I guess the problem is that, since I don't believe in "prophetic years" or in trying to figure out the time of Christ's return (Isn't that what happens at the end of the church age?), I didn't carefully study every word you wrote. So, since I still don't believe in those things, I'll now let it go. I'm sorry for misunderstanding what you wrote. (You gotta admit, its not hard to do when you see a Christian talking about 2,000 "prophetic years" from the time of Christ's death and referring to a recent date like 1998, etc.)

I had hoped to find more people here interested in discussing the "70 weeks" prophecy. But I guess not. It seems that with some of us believing its fulfillment is all past and some of us feeling all or much of it is still in the future, any discussion of this subject matter turns into more of an argument. That's too bad because I think we should all be willing to learn. At least we should be when understandings are presented to us which are supported by scholarly references and historical realities.

Only a few days ago I was pretty certain that Nehemiah had taken five years to get to Jerusalem, as that was the opinion of a couple of Bible scholars and historians whose works on this subject matter I had recently read and here quoted. Then the night before last I was presented with much historical information indicating that Nehemiah reckoned the reign of Artaxerxes differently than we now do and differently than Josephus did. And that this difference accounts for Nehemiah's and Josephus' apparent five year disagreement.

I thought this was fascinating information. I was surprised that no one else here even commented on it. Probably because very few are following this thread. The topic is a bit deep for the average Christian. And all that historical information was probably a bit too deep even for most who are here. Of course, the real reason it probably got no comment is because it probably did not get closely read. As I did not closely read your thoughts on the supposed 2,000 "prophetic years" because my mind was already made up against such an understanding, I think most here whose minds are already made up against a past fulfillment of the "70 weeks" understanding do not bother reading posts which support it.

I am willing to consider the "70 weeks" interpretations of "futurists" if they support their conclusions with evidence that indicates their conclusions may be valid. However, all the interpretations which futurists have here presented are the type that seem to be pulled out of a hat. No scholarly references or historical evidence of any kind has been given in their support.