Daniel's 70th week

[DavidPT]

Tell them to read up on Antiochus IV Epiphanes (God Manifest) He made Jerusalem "desolate".. Three years later the Jews rededicated the Temple. (See Hannukah)

In what year does the beginning of the 70 weeks begin, in order for it to end during the days of Antiochus IV Epiphanes? And what was significant about that time in particular, meaning the year the 70 weeks began per your interpretation?

 

[summerville]

In what year does the beginning of the 70 weeks begin, in order for it to end during the days of Antiochus IV Epiphanes? And what was significant about that time in particular, meaning the year the 70 weeks began per your interpretation?

I find counting weeks to be impossible since everyone has a different starting point... and sometimes they count Years as Weeks.

Antiochus IV ruled from 175 BC to 164 BC and Daniel was written in 166 or 167 BC. Antiochus was a bad guy.. He did horrible things to the Jews. That's the reason for the Maccabean Revolt.

The Jewish rebellion, lasting from 167 to 160 BCE, was led by the Maccabees against the Seleucid Empire and their Hellenistic influence on Jewish life.

 

[jgr]

Why would that be up to the translators? Something in verse 27 has to be explaining what is being made desolate, the fact that is the last verse in that chapter. I would think that is just plain common sense.

You'll have to ask the translators why they don't have common sense.

But even before that, you'll have to ask Daniel why he didn't have common sense.

 

[summerville]

If it is somehow meaning Jerusalem, which it could be, though I tend to doubt that it is, it wouldn't be meaning Jerusalem in the literal sense in the first century. It would have to be meaning Jesrusalem in some other sense, assuming Jerusalem were meant.






Yet, if one intreprets those same Scriptures like I do, they prove there is a delay since this would make the coming in Matthew 24:30 the same coming seen in Revelation 19. And if the coming in Matthew 24:30 is meaning Christ's coming in the end of this age via the way I interpret that verse, that makes the coming which starts in Revelation 19:11 as occurring in the end of this age as well, therefore placing the timing of Revelation 19:2 in the end of the age also. Further proving the wedding feast was put on hold for at least 2000 years or so, depending on when Christ actually returns since we don't know when that is, the fact it hasn't happened yet.

Clearly then, depending on how one interprets some of these things, makes all the difference in the world as to the end result. What one should be trying to do, regardless, is to be on the same page Jesus was when He spoke these things. If I am interpreting what Jesus said one way, and you are interpreting it another way, both of us can't be correct then. Either we are both wrong, or at least one of us is right.

When the OT prophets went on a rant scolding Israel for "whoring after false gods" they often called Israel a harlot.

 

[jgr]

Yet, one then has to explain exactly what the abomination that makes desolate was at the time. I have yet to see anyone provide a satisfactory explanation for that part, meaning one that would be hard to dispute.

We have to keep in mind, seeing the abomination that maketh desolate is the reason one has to leave, as if a volcano were erupting in their vicinity, thus no time to pack, get out while you still can or stay and die.

When these Christians fled in the first century, did they all flee at the exact same time, as in one big group?

Luke 21:20 has been cited innumerable times.

 

[DavidPT]

You'll have to ask the translators why they don't have common sense.

But even before that, you'll have to ask Daniel why he didn't have common sense.

What I am saying should be common sense, is that something in verse 27 has to be explaining what it is that is made desolate. There are not a whole lot of choices in that verse. It either has to be the sacrifice and the oblation or the covenant. There are no other verses after verse 27 in Daniel 9. Therefore the nearest antecedent has be in verse 27 itself since it seems ludicrous that we are told he shall make it desolate, yet never told what is being made desolate. What then does that have to do with translators or Daniel and common sense on their part? I'm talking about common sense in general, that it should be common sense that something in verse 27 is being made desolate, regardless how one chooses to interpret that verse.

 

[DavidPT]

Luke 21:20 has been cited innumerable times.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:


Jesus clearly spoke these words before 70 AD. That obviously means there were some back then aware of what He said. He told them to consult the book of Daniel, basically. So where in Daniel can we find Jerusalem being surrounded by the Romans, where it then calls that the abomination of desolation? Keeping in mind those back in Jesus' day before 70 AD would have been considering these same Scriptures, assuming they took His advice that Daniel has more to say about this particular matter. We have hindsight, they didn't.

 

[summerville]

What I am saying should be common sense, is that something in verse 27 has to be explaining what it is that is made desolate. There are not a whole lot of choices in that verse. It either has to be the sacrifice and the oblation or the covenant. There are no other verses after verse 27 in Daniel 9. Therefore the nearest antecedent has be in verse 27 itself since it seems ludicrous that we are told he shall make it desolate, yet never told what is being made desolate. What then does that have to do with translators or Daniel and common sense on their part? I'm talking about common sense in general, that it should be common sense that something in verse 27 is being made desolate, regardless how one chooses to interpret that verse.

Jerusalem and the Temple.

 

[pasifika]

The NIV that you're using is frequently translationally inaccurate. Only it and two other of the about fifty English versions translate as "...he will set up..."

The best version for literal translation accuracy is the YLT:

"And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and [in] the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one."

By the wing of abominations (the Roman armies) he (Messiah) is making desolate.

Messiah used the Roman armies to desolate Jerusalem, and accomplish His purposes.

As I've been explaining.

Okay, let see your translation of Daniel 9:27...
Is the "he" who causes sacrifices and present to cease in the midst of the week is the same "he" who made the wing of abominations etc?

 

[summerville]

Okay, let see your translation of Daniel 9:27...
Is the "he" who causes sacrifices and present to cease in the midst of the week is the same "he" who made the wing of abominations etc?

The "he" is Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Antiochus Epiphanes was a ruthless and often capricious ruler. He is properly Antiochus IV, but he took upon himself the title “Epiphanes,” which means “illustrious one” or “god manifest.” However, his bizarre and blasphemous behavior earned him another nickname among the Jews: “Epimanes,” which means “mad one.”

 

[DavidPT]

I find counting weeks to be impossible since everyone has a different starting point... and sometimes they count Years as Weeks.

Antiochus IV ruled from 175 BC to 164 BC and Daniel was written in 166 or 167 BC. Antiochus was a bad guy.. He did horrible things to the Jews. That's the reason for the Maccabean Revolt.

The Jewish rebellion, lasting from 167 to 160 BCE, was led by the Maccabees against the Seleucid Empire and their Hellenistic influence on Jewish life.

It seems apparent to me, regardless whether one finds it impossible to count weeks or not, Jerusalem would have to be in a destroyed state when the 70 weeks inititially begin. Otherwise it makes nonsense out of verse 25 in Daniel 9. It also seems to me that it was around 168 BC when AE4 initially defiled the temple that time. We roughly need to count back from there 480 some years to get to the beginning of the 70 weeks per that particular interpretation. 483 years earlier would roughly be 651 BC or so. It seems to me that the general consensus as to when Jerusalem was destroyed the first time is between 607 BC to 587 BC. That would seem to indicate that Jerusalem wouldn't even be in destroyed state as of yet some 480 years earlier, assuming AE4 is meant in Daniel 9:27. And if so, I would think this alone should prove AE4 couldn't possibly be meant in Daniel 9.

 

[jgr]

Okay, let see your translation of Daniel 9:27...
Is the "he" who causes sacrifices and present to cease in the midst of the week is the same "he" who made the wing of abominations etc?

Yes, He is. Messiah.

 

[summerville]

It seems apparent to me, regardless whether one finds it impossible to count weeks or not, Jerusalem would have to be in a destroyed state when the 70 weeks inititially begin. Otherwise it makes nonsense out of verse 25 in Daniel 9. It also seems to me that it was around 168 BC when AE4 initially defiled the temple that time. We roughly need to count back from there 480 some years to get to the beginning of the 70 weeks per that particular interpretation. 483 years earlier would roughly be 651 BC or so. It seems to me that the general consensus as to when Jerusalem was destroyed the first time is between 607 BC to 587 BC. That would seem to indicate that Jerusalem wouldn't even be in destroyed state as of yet some 480 years earlier, assuming AE4 is meant in Daniel 9:27. And if so, I would think this alone should prove AE4 couldn't possibly be meant in Daniel 9.

Sorry. I'm not following you. Antiochus defiled the Temple by sacrificing pigs to Zeus and all hell broke loose.

The Revolt of the Maccabees: The true story behind ...
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/the-revolt-of-the-maccabees-the-true-story-behind...
Dec 27, 2019 · By this time, following Antiochus' death in Parthia in 164 BC, the Seleucid Empire was ruled by Lysias, regent for the child King Antiochus V Eupator. Lysias set out to destroy Jerusalem and crush the Maccabean revolt once and for all. After beating Judas in battle south of Bethlehem, Lysias laid siege to Jerusalem.

 

[jgr]

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:


Jesus clearly spoke these words before 70 AD. That obviously means there were some back then aware of what He said. He told them to consult the book of Daniel, basically. So where in Daniel can we find Jerusalem being surrounded by the Romans, where it then calls that the abomination of desolation? Keeping in mind those back in Jesus' day before 70 AD would have been considering these same Scriptures, assuming they took His advice that Daniel has more to say about this particular matter. We have hindsight, they didn't.

Luke 21:20 tells us who the abomination of desolation is that Daniel and Matthew refer to.

 

[summerville]

Yes, He is. Messiah.

Antiochus is not the messiah and you have skipped a huge chunk of history.

 

[DavidPT]

Jerusalem and the Temple.

And does not sacrifices and oblations involve a temple?

 

[jgr]

What I am saying should be common sense, is that something in verse 27 has to be explaining what it is that is made desolate. There are not a whole lot of choices in that verse. It either has to be the sacrifice and the oblation or the covenant. There are no other verses after verse 27 in Daniel 9. Therefore the nearest antecedent has be in verse 27 itself since it seems ludicrous that we are told he shall make it desolate, yet never told what is being made desolate. What then does that have to do with translators or Daniel and common sense on their part? I'm talking about common sense in general, that it should be common sense that something in verse 27 is being made desolate, regardless how one chooses to interpret that verse.

Luke 21:20 tells us what is being made desolate.

 

[summerville]

And does not sacrifices and oblations involve a temple?

Yes.. and they stopped during the reign of Antiochus IV because the Maccabeans broke out in war.

After Antiochus IV died Lysias was regent for the child King Antiochus V Eupator.

Lysias set out to destroy Jerusalem and crush the Maccabean revolt once and for all. After beating Judas in battle south of Bethlehem, Lysias laid siege to Jerusalem.

 

[DavidPT]

Sorry. I'm not following you. Antiochus defiled the Temple by sacrificing pigs to Zeus and all hell broke loose.

The Revolt of the Maccabees: The true story behind ...
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/the-revolt-of-the-maccabees-the-true-story-behind...
Dec 27, 2019 · By this time, following Antiochus' death in Parthia in 164 BC, the Seleucid Empire was ruled by Lysias, regent for the child King Antiochus V Eupator. Lysias set out to destroy Jerusalem and crush the Maccabean revolt once and for all. After beating Judas in battle south of Bethlehem, Lysias laid siege to Jerusalem.

What I'm saying is, AE4 is nowhere to be found in Daniel 9:25-27, because the beginning of the 70 weeks have to start after Jerusalem has already been destroyed. 483 years earlier, meaning the first 69 weeks, from the time of 168 BC would place the beginning of the 70 weeks during a time when Jerusalem hasn't even been destroyed yet, thus making nonsense out of verse 25 in Daniel 9 since that verse is focusing on rebuilding a city that had previously been destroyed.

 

[jgr]

Antiochus is not the messiah and you have skipped a huge chunk of history.

Did Antiochus:

1. Destroy Jerusalem (Daniel 9:26)
2. Confirm a Covenant with many for one week (Daniel 9:27)

?