70th Week - It Is Still Pending

[DaDad]

Since all of the instances in Daniel 9 and 10 are masculine, what "Feminine text" are you referring to?

Well, according to the "Blue Letter Bible" word search for "weeks"/ shabuwa`/ H7620, there are ~20 cited instances, and where we've already identified 4 in Daniel 9, and 2 in Daniel 10, that leaves 14 which you've attested are NOT the UNUSUAL Masculine gender text, and thus these 14 must be of the implied* USUAL Feminine gender text:

1. Gen 29:27
2. Gen 29:28
3. Exo 34:22
4. Lev 12:5
5. Num 28:26
6. Deu 16:9 x 2
7. Deu 16:10
8. Deu 16:16
9. 2Ch 8:13
10. Jer 5:24
11. Eze 45:21
12. Dan 9:24
13. Dan 9:25 x 2
14. Dan 9:26
15. Dan 9:27 x 2
16. Dan 10:2
17. Dan 10:3

* “... as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’”[1]


John Wolvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 217​

Please note that neither the "Blue Letter Bible" nor "Strongs" differentiates between the subtle word variations and associated genders.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[DaDad]

Based on your interpretation there is no timeline of the Messiah's arrival in Daniel chapter 9.

Incorrect. There ABSOLUTELY is a timeline of the TWO "anointed ones" (small "a' / small "m"), -- the first after the seven, and the second after the sixty-two. The ONLY distinction is that the Text does not support a concise seven/week duration.

Does it have anything to do with the rebuilding of the city and the temple?

One of us is confused. The Text says: "... from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks." So obviously the two aspects are inherently connected.

It seems to me that if we could find the "going forth of the word", we might have a starting point to determine the time durations for the inconcise Masculine gender sevens/weeks.

Have you searched the O.T. for such a "commandment"?

“[Per Young] This phrase has reference to the issuance of the word, not from a Persian ruler but from God. Young goes on to point out that the expression the commandment, which he insists is better translated “a word” (Heb. Dābār; cf. 2Ch 30:5) is also found is Daniel 9:23 for a word from God.”[1]

John Wolvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 224​

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[mkgal1]

These aren't actually all connected though, right? These are just coincidences, and nothing more, right?


When Scripture interprets Scripture, it oftentimes involves various passages from various places in the Bible. It therefore is incorrect to conclude these verses in Daniel 8 and 11 above do not involve the verses in Daniel 12 above.

I never wrote that those aren't connected.

That wasn't my point at all.

My point was about "the time of the end" NOT being "the end of time".

Has there been an end to the Jerusalem with a Temple that has a veil separating the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple (or does that still exist....and the temple in Jerusalem is the center of the Jewish religious life still)?

 

[jgr]

Well, according to the "Blue Letter Bible" word search for "weeks"/ shabuwa`/ H7620, there are ~20 cited instances, and where we've already identified 4 in Daniel 9, and 2 in Daniel 10, that leaves 14 which you've attested are NOT the UNUSUAL Masculine gender text, and thus these 14 must be of the implied* USUAL Feminine gender text:

1. Gen 29:27
2. Gen 29:28
3. Exo 34:22
4. Lev 12:5
5. Num 28:26
6. Deu 16:9 x 2
7. Deu 16:10
8. Deu 16:16
9. 2Ch 8:13
10. Jer 5:24
11. Eze 45:21
12. Dan 9:24
13. Dan 9:25 x 2
14. Dan 9:26
15. Dan 9:27 x 2
16. Dan 10:2
17. Dan 10:3

* “... as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’”[1]


John Wolvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 217​

Please note that neither the "Blue Letter Bible" nor "Strongs" differentiates between the subtle word variations and associated genders.

Thanks,
DaDad

There's no such thing as "implied" gender. It's either explicitly masculine, or explicitly feminine, or neither.

I checked every Scripture cited.

Every single one is masculine.

You need to toss Young/Keil/Kliefoth/Walvoord into the round file.

 

[DavidPT]

I never wrote that those aren't connected.

Sometimes when I try and make a point, it is oftentimes in general. So my comments weren't specifically addressed to you in this case, they were just comments in general.

 

[BABerean2]

Have you searched the O.T. for such a "commandment"?

“[Per Young] This phrase has reference to the issuance of the word, not from a Persian ruler but from God. Young goes on to point out that the expression the commandment, which he insists is better translated “a word” (Heb. Dābār; cf. 2Ch 30:5) is also found is Daniel 9:23 for a word from God.”[1]

John Wolvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 224

Have you searched any source other than the one found above in Walvoord's book?


Daniel Chapter 9: Dr. Kelly Varner

.

 

[mkgal1]

Sometimes when I try and make a point, it is oftentimes in general. So my comments weren't specifically addressed to you in this case, they were just comments in general.

Okay.....my question still stands.

You'd commented that the "time of the end leads to an end of time"....and I don't see that in Scripture. Any reference to "time of the end" seems to be the end of ancient Jerusalem/the temple that occurred in 70 A.D.

You seems to believe there hasn't yet been "the time of the end".

And my question is: is the temple in Jerusalem still the center of the religious life for the Jewish people - or has that time *ended*?

 

[mkgal1]

Yet it seems to me that you are arguing that the 70th week has already been fulfilled? How do you figure that if the words in Daniel 9:27 are of the words that are to be shut up, even to the time of the end?

Can you explain to me -in your own words, not the biblical text- what this means? What I mean is, why do you think the 70th week couldn't have been fulfilled based on these words?

 

[DaDad]

There's no such thing as "implied" gender. It's either explicitly masculine, or explicitly feminine, or neither.

I checked every Scripture cited.

Every single one is masculine.

Apparently "Strongs" offers different information:

7620 shabuwa; or shabua; also (fem.)
​

Young's doesn't distinguish a gender, but does offer a single rendering for the same text:

shabua
​

The Blue Letter Bible offers:
שָׁבוּעַ shâbûwaʻ, shaw-boo'-ah; or שָׁבֻעַ shâbuaʻ; also (feminine) שְׁבֻעָה shᵉbuʻâh; properly, passive participle of H7650 as a denominative of H7651; literally, sevened, i.e. a week (specifically, of years):—seven, week.

Per the J.P. Green Sr. Interlinear, the verse 24 "seventy" appears identical to the "weeks", with the exception of the dots and titles; and the Chapter 9 text and the Chapter 10 text is equally identical with the exception of the dots and titles.


So, given the apparent complexity of Hebrew, I cannot discount the expertise of Young, Keil, & Kliefoth, -- and Walvoord's reliance on their expertise --, in favor of an anonymous internet forum poster.

As such I will presume the original premise in which Scripture agrees with History. Thus we remain at:

“... as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’”


“...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keil and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.”


John Wolvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 217 & 218​

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[DaDad]

To All,
So now, I would propose that we leave this point unresolved, and proceed to the next point, the Daniel 9:2 selection of the word "biyn" as presented in Daniel 9:2

“...perceived in the books the number of years...” (RSV[1])
“...understood by books the number of the years...” (KJV[2])
“...understood by the books the number of the years...” (NKJV[3])
​

If Daniel simply read in “the books”, much like picking up a newspaper and reading the weather forecast, he would have used the “shama” simple understanding. However, Daniel used the word “biyn” which is a much more complex understanding. Consider 1 Kings 3:

9 Give thy servant therefore an understanding [shama, H8085] mind to govern thy people, that I may discern between good and evil; for who is able to govern this thy great people?”

11 And God said to him, “Because you have asked this, and have not asked for yourself long life or riches or the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding [biyn H995] to discern what is right, 12 behold, I now do according to your word. Behold, I give you a wise and discerning [biyn H995] mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you.
​

As evidenced, Solomon asked for a simple “shama” understanding, and although GOD said HE would give him what he asked for, GOD did not give him what he asked for. Instead HE gave Solomon a much more complex understanding, which would not be matched by any other man. As such, we must consider that Daniel did not read the “books” as from Jeremiah 29:10:

10 “For thus says the Lord: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place.
​

Instead Daniel read something much more complex “in the books” of the Old Testament. As such, I would propose that there is a direct reference in at least one book of the Old Testament which reveals the number of years according to the seventy weeks.

Thanks,
DaDdad

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Apparently "Strongs" offers different information:

7620 shabuwa; or shabua; also (fem.)
​

Young's doesn't distinguish a gender, but does offer a single rendering for the same text:

shabua
​

DaDad

Yep.......looks good to me

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ce-of-a-gap-in-the-70-weeks-of-dan-9.8077710/

Daniel 9:24
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-the-70-weeks-of-dan-9.8077710/#post-73069437

‘Seventy<7657> sevens <7620>

7657 shib`iym. shib-eem' multiple of 7651; seventy:--seventy, threescore and ten (+ -teen).
7620 shabuwa` shaw-boo'-ah or shabuan {shaw-boo'-ah}; also (feminine) shbu.ah {sheb-oo-aw'}; properly, passive participle of 7650 as a denominative of 7651; literal, sevened, i.e. a week (specifically, of years):--seven, week.

Daniel 9:25:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-the-70-weeks-of-dan-9.8077710/#post-73069437

sevens<7620> seven<7651> and sevens<7620> sixty<8346> and-two<8147

7620 shabuwa` shaw-boo'-ah or shabuan {shaw-boo'-ah}; also (feminine) shbu.ah {sheb-oo-aw'}; properly, passive participle of 7650 as a denominative of 7651; literal, sevened, i.e. a week (specifically, of years):--
7651 sheba` sheh'-bah or (masculine) shibrah {shib-aw'}; from 7650; a primitive cardinal number; seven (as the sacred full one); also (adverbially) seven times; by implication, a week; by extension, an indefinite number:--(+ by) seven(-fold),-s, (-teen, -teenth), -th, times). Compare 7658.

Is there a "gap" in the 70 weeks of Daniel 9"

1. No
   15 vote(s)
   46.9%
2. Yes
   16 vote(s)
   50.0%
3. *
   I don't know
   1 vote(s)
   3.1%
4. Other
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%

 

[BABerean2]

So, given the apparent complexity of Hebrew, I cannot discount the expertise of Young, Keil, & Kliefoth, -- and Walvoord's reliance on their expertise --, in favor of an anonymous internet forum poster.

Why not? You have discounted the scholarship of hundreds of other Bible scholars in favor of one reference, in Walvoord's book?

.

 

[DaDad]

... You have discounted the scholarship of hundreds of other Bible scholars in favor of one reference, in Walvoord's book? ...

Of course not. I rely entirely on what YOU post, in both your comments and your videos. And now that you mention it, I also use all the other commentators who have equally disobeyed the angel's instructions:

12:4 But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”
9 He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end.
​

After all, if they're all smarter than the angel, -- what more could I ask for?

DaDad

 

[jgr]

Apparently "Strongs" offers different information:

7620 shabuwa; or shabua; also (fem.)
​

Young's doesn't distinguish a gender, but does offer a single rendering for the same text:

shabua
​

The Blue Letter Bible offers:
שָׁבוּעַ shâbûwaʻ, shaw-boo'-ah; or שָׁבֻעַ shâbuaʻ; also (feminine) שְׁבֻעָה shᵉbuʻâh; properly, passive participle of H7650 as a denominative of H7651; literally, sevened, i.e. a week (specifically, of years):—seven, week.

Per the J.P. Green Sr. Interlinear, the verse 24 "seventy" appears identical to the "weeks", with the exception of the dots and titles; and the Chapter 9 text and the Chapter 10 text is equally identical with the exception of the dots and titles.


So, given the apparent complexity of Hebrew, I cannot discount the expertise of Young, Keil, & Kliefoth, -- and Walvoord's reliance on their expertise --, in favor of an anonymous internet forum poster.

As such I will presume the original premise in which Scripture agrees with History. Thus we remain at:

“... as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’”


“...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keil and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.”


John Wolvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 217 & 218​

Thanks,
DaDad

When you go to the Hebrew for each verse you cited, and mouseover the usage for each instance of "week(s)" and "seven(s)" as I suggested earlier, you'll see a "masculine" for every one.

You have yet to discover a single instance of feminine usage.

 

[DaDad]

When you go to the Hebrew for each verse you cited, and mouseover the usage for each instance of "week(s)" and "seven(s)" as I suggested earlier, you'll see a "masculine" for every one.

I understand what you've said, I just don't trust that the dots and titles have been adequately considered by the BibleHub sources. Specifically, if the gender identification were so easy, then why did Walvoord call specific attention to Young, who in turn called specific attention to Kiel and Kliefoth? Could it be that the dots and titles are much more complex than a simple glance at the "letters"? And as evidenced by the Strongs H7620 generic rendering of the text, could BibleHub have fallen into the same sloppiness?

Me thinks there's a problem with 30,000 ft declarations. So it may be prudent to leave this point unresolved, and continue to another point, as I've suggested.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[jgr]

I understand what you've said, I just don't trust that the dots and titles have been adequately considered by the BibleHub sources. Specifically, if the gender identification were so easy, then why did Walvoord call specific attention to Young, who in turn called specific attention to Kiel and Kliefoth? Could it be that the dots and titles are much more complex than a simple glance at the "letters"? And as evidenced by the Strongs H7620 generic rendering of the text, could BibleHub have fallen into the same sloppiness?

Me thinks there's a problem with 30,000 ft declarations. So it may be prudent to leave this point unresolved, and continue to another point, as I've suggested.

Thanks,
DaDad

If you right-click the usage, it will take you to the detail sourced in the Helps Bible, which is associated with the Discovery Bible, which is held in maximum esteem.

Whatever sloppiness exists is entirely associated with Young/Keil/Kliefoth/Walvoord, since they have not cited a single explicit verse-specific example of feminine usage.

Toss 'em.

The point is fully resolved.

I agree that we can move on, as our readers have more than sufficient information with which to reach their own conclusions.

 

[DaDad]

... Whatever sloppiness exists is entirely associated with Young/Keil/Kliefoth/Walvoord, since they have not cited a single explicit verse-specific example of feminine usage.

Sorry, I don't believe it. Walvoord cited the best and brightest experts, and of course his conclusions contradicted his expert sources. I'm not the least bit worried about Young, Kiel, & Kliefoth because Young perceives nuances which he cannot attribute, and that's the sign of an honest broker. It's the same with J.R. Church. He wrote a book on a subject which significance he equally didn't fully comprehend.

And with my Prophetic background I can take their puzzle pieces and complete a correct picture. -- But not without each of their help.

So now we can TRUST in the angel's "end time" guidance from 12:4 & 9, because Scripture FINALLY agrees with History.

With Best Regards,
DaDad

 

[jgr]

Sorry, I don't believe it. Walvoord cited the best and brightest experts, and of course his conclusions contradicted his expert sources. I'm not the least bit worried about Young, Kiel, & Kliefoth because Young perceives nuances which he cannot attribute, and that's the sign of an honest broker. It's the same with J.R. Church. He wrote a book on a subject which significance he equally didn't fully comprehend.

And with my Prophetic background I can take their puzzle pieces and complete a correct picture. -- But not without each of their help.

So now we can TRUST in the angel's "end time" guidance from 12:4 & 9, because Scripture FINALLY agrees with History.

With Best Regards,
DaDad

There is no legitimacy in a premise which cannot produce a single example of its claim.

 

[DaDad]

There is no legitimacy in a premise which

has not

produce[d] a single example of its claim.

Can not and has not are completely different. Young stated:

“... as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’”

“...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keil and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.”​

To demand citations for a "usual" circumstance is counter-productive, and somewhat conspiratorial. Young provided the justification that a feminine gender text is: "usual". And Keil and Kliefoth agree with Young; or Young agrees with Keil and Kliefoth; or they all three reached the same conclusion with a various combination of independence.

And the funny thing is that these "conspirators" DON'T HAVE A SUBSEQUENT AGENDA WHICH THEY'RE PURSUING. In fact, THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A PREMISE AS TO WHY THE TEXT IS "UNUSUAL".

Now the proponents of a "Jesus" fulfillment have a DEFINITE agenda is dismissing any questions regarding this "unusual" text, -- exactly as members of this Forum demonstrate, with some blindly refusing to even consider an alternate fulfillment -- in spite of contradicting the angelic guidance of 12:4 & 9.


So can we put this aside, and proceed to the next aspect to be considered?

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[jgr]

has not

Can not and has not are completely different. Young stated:

“... as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’”

“...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keil and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.”​

To demand citations for a "usual" circumstance is counter-productive, and somewhat conspiratorial. Young provided the justification that a feminine gender text is: "usual". And Keil and Kliefoth agree with Young; or Young agrees with Keil and Kliefoth; or they all three reached the same conclusion with a various combination of independence.

And the funny thing is that these "conspirators" DON'T HAVE A SUBSEQUENT AGENDA WHICH THEY'RE PURSUING. In fact, THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A PREMISE AS TO WHY THE TEXT IS "UNUSUAL".

Now the proponents of a "Jesus" fulfillment have a DEFINITE agenda is dismissing any questions regarding this "unusual" text, -- exactly as members of this Forum demonstrate, with some blindly refusing to even consider an alternate fulfillment -- in spite of contradicting the angelic guidance of 12:4 & 9.


So can we put this aside, and proceed to the next aspect to be considered?

Thanks,
DaDad

That which is nonexistent, and that which is usual, are mutually exclusive.

It has not, and it cannot, because Scripture cannot be rewritten.

We can proceed.