Jacob’s 70 Weeks

[Christian Gedge]

No, not Daniel’s - Jacob’s 70 Weeks! I had this bought to my attention years ago when someone mentioned a repeating pattern of 490 years in the Old Testament. His dates were only approximate, but it seemed more than coincidental that three sets of ‘490’ fit nicely between Moses and Christ.

I figured the pattern might have gone earlier than that, measuring the slavery era. Nope; Israel was in Egypt exactly 430 years. (Exodus 12:40) Close, but not close enough. Then it occurred to me that there was an early precursor to Christ’s atonement. It was Jacob’s dream at Bethel, so I measured from there.

That’s where it starts to get interesting. Have a look at the years from Bethel to the Exodus, and then compare Daniel 9:25. Coincidence?

 

[DaDad]

Coincidence?

For there to be a second "490 years" there has to be a FIRST "490 years", which there's not. The commentators have lied, and you've believed them. Neither the context, the text, the sentences, the precedent, the "gap theology", the "tribulation week", nor the a/c during the seventieth week support ANY such HISTORY.

I'm reminded of a Statistics professor who opened the first day of class with: "Statistics don't lie, but liars statist".

As such, you might want to be more cautious with this "doctrine".

DaDad

 

[BABerean2]

For there to be a second "490 years" there has to be a FIRST "490 years", which there's not. The commentators have lied, and you've believed them. Neither the context, the text, the sentences, the precedent, the "gap theology", the "tribulation week", nor the a/c during the seventieth week support ANY such HISTORY.

Dan 9:24 "Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.


Heb 10:16 "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR HEARTS, AND IN THEIR MINDS I WILL WRITE THEM,"
Heb 10:17 then He adds, "THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
Heb 10:18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.


Act 10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

.

 

[Christian Gedge]

I'm reminded of a Statistics professor who opened the first day of class with: "Statistics don't lie, but liars statist".

Good advice. So let’s do some statistics together. Add the years between Bethel (when Israel was given his name) unto AD 34 (when the Gentiles were invited into the kingdom) and you’ll find it is 1960 years.

Now, divide it by 4, and we get exactly four eras of 490 years. Hey Dad, we done it with our own calculator, and not one commentator. Cool eh?

 

[DaDad]

Dan 9:24 "Seventy weeks ...

And once again, the "weeks" are NOT in the CONCISE feminine gender text. Per Young, (in agreement with Keil and Kliefoth) the "weeks" are in the "unusual" INCONCISE masculine gender text.

So you can have a "cool" glass of water, and you can go for a ride in a "cool" car. But -- don't take a hat, coat and gloves for your car ride. Only an English novice would do that.

Oh, yeah, and only a Hebrew novice would treat a concise and inconcise word the same!

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[DaDad]

Good advice. So let’s do some statistics together. ...

So are you saying you agree that there is NO PRECEDENT for your ~490 year premise?

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[Christian Gedge]

If you are asking for a precedent earlier than Jacob, then no; I’m not aware of an earlier era of 490 years before Jacob.

If you are asking for a precedent earlier than the 70 weeks usually talked about, then yes; there are three. An important aspect of the ‘weeks’ that is not often discussed is how they are actually one and the same thing as the Sabbatical years. When this is understood, things start making sense.

 

[jgr]

And once again, the "weeks" are NOT in the CONCISE feminine gender text. Per Young, (in agreement with Keil and Kliefoth) the "weeks" are in the "unusual" INCONCISE masculine gender text.

So you can have a "cool" glass of water, and you can go for a ride in a "cool" car. But -- don't take a hat, coat and gloves for your car ride. Only an English novice would do that.

Oh, yeah, and only a Hebrew novice would treat a concise and inconcise word the same!

Thanks,
DaDad

We're all still waiting to see that nonexistent "feminine gender text", DaDad. Do you have an example for us yet?

 

[DaDad]

We're all still waiting to see that nonexistent "feminine gender text", DaDad. Do you have an example for us yet?

You completely missed the significance. You cited a "translated" word. You didn't use the ORIGINAL TEXT. So are you surprised that when Jesus asked Peter "do you love me", and Peter said "yes", that Peter answered with a DIFFERENT "LOVE". Jesus asked "agape", and Peter answered "philo".

DON'T USE TRANSLATED WORDS. If you want the meaning of the original text USE THE ORIGINAL WORDS. And in doing so, PLEASE be sufficiently proficient that you can account for the change in jots and tittles.

-- And THAT'S why Walvoord had to cite Young, who in turn referenced both Keil and Kliefoth!

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[DaDad]

... An important aspect of the ‘weeks’ that is not often discussed is how they are actually one and the same thing as the Sabbatical years. When this is understood, things start making sense.

Hi CG,
If you're citing Daniel, then your premise is incorrect. If you're citing other instances then your premise is open for discussion/consideration/acceptance.
Thanks,
DaDad

 

[jgr]

You completely missed the significance. You cited a "translated" word. You didn't use the ORIGINAL TEXT. So are you surprised that when Jesus asked Peter "do you love me", and Peter said "yes", that Peter answered with a DIFFERENT "LOVE". Jesus asked "agape", and Peter answered "philo".

DON'T USE TRANSLATED WORDS. If you want the meaning of the original text USE THE ORIGINAL WORDS. And in doing so, PLEASE be sufficiently proficient that you can account for the change in dots and titles.

-- And THAT'S why Walvoord had to cite Young, who in turn referenced both Keil and Kliefoth!

Thanks,
DaDad

I did use the original words. I went directly to the Hebrew.

It's all masculine.

 

[DaDad]

I did use the original words. I went directly to the Hebrew.
It's all masculine.

The "Hebrew" you cited is the šā-ḇu-‘îm. You DIDN'T cite the שָׁבֻעִ֨ים . The ORIGINAL TEXT is not in the former, WHICH YOU CITED. It's in the latter. So if you want to make your case, then USE THE ORIGINAL TEXT, ( שָׁבֻעִ֨ים ) and explain all the jots and tittles.

In doing so, I expect that first of all, neither of us have the expertise to explain the dots and titles, -- and neither did Walvoord. Secondly, Young, Keil, & Kliefoth DO have the expertise to account for the dots and titles, and have determined that ALL INSTANCES in the O.T. are Feminine Gender, EXCEPT Daniel 9 which uses the "unusual" Masculine Gender.

I await your verdict.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[jgr]

The "Hebrew" you cited is the šā-ḇu-‘îm. You DIDN'T cite the

The "Hebrew" you cited is the šā-ḇu-‘îm. You DIDN'T cite the שָׁבֻעִ֨ים . The ORIGINAL TEXT is not in the former, WHICH YOU CITED. It's in the latter. So if you want to make your case, then USE THE ORIGINAL TEXT, ( שָׁבֻעִ֨ים ) and explain all the dots and titles.

In doing so, I expect that first of all, neither of us have the expertise to explain the dots and titles, -- and neither did Walvoord. Secondly, Young, Keil, & Kliefoth DO have the expertise to account for the dots and titles, and have determined that ALL INSTANCES in the O.T. are Feminine Gender, EXCEPT Daniel 9 which uses the "unusual" Masculine Gender.

I await your verdict.

Thanks,
DaDad

. The ORIGINAL TEXT is not in the former, WHICH YOU CITED. It's in the latter. So if you want to make your case, then USE THE ORIGINAL TEXT, ( שָׁבֻעִ֨ים ) and explain all the dots and titles.

In doing so, I expect that first of all, neither of us have the expertise to explain the dots and titles, -- and neither did Walvoord. Secondly, Young, Keil, & Kliefoth DO have the expertise to account for the dots and titles, and have determined that ALL INSTANCES in the O.T. are Feminine Gender, EXCEPT Daniel 9 which uses the "unusual" Masculine Gender.

I await your verdict.

Thanks,
DaDad

Cite any verse which uses the feminine.

 

[DaDad]

The "Hebrew" you cited is the šā-ḇu-‘îm. You DIDN'T cite the שָׁבֻעִ֨ים .

Cite any verse which uses the feminine.

Absolutely, -- as soon as I can figure out the jots and tittles. And of course, YOU can decipher the dots and titles, so PLEASE inform me with the how's, why's, and wherefore's.

Easy peasy:

“... 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​

DaDad

 

[jgr]

Absolutely, -- as soon as I can figure out the dots and titles. And of course, YOU can decipher the dots and titles, so PLEASE inform me with the how's, why's, and wherefore's.

Easy peasy:

“... 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​

DaDad

Should be simple; just choose any verse outside of Daniel 9. Of course, I also want a link to the Young/Keil/Kliefoth/Walvoord analysis of the verse proving that the applicable word is feminine.

I await your response.

 

[DaDad]

Should be simple; just choose any verse outside of Daniel 9. ...

I already have, and the jots and tittles don't match,-- but then again, I've already explained that to you. But what good is wasted breath for except to keep repeating what's already been provided.

So how's the interpretation of the dots and titles coming along from you? Have you resolved the ORIGINAL TEXT jots and tittles ( שָׁבֻעִ֨ים ) yet? And speaking of wasted breath, I'm not holding mine ...

“... 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


King James Version, 1611:
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
​

Please obey Scripture.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[jgr]

I already have, and the jots and tittles don't match,-- but then again, I've already explained that to you. But what good is wasted breath for except to keep repeating what's already been provided.

So how's the interpretation of the dots and titles coming along from you? Have you resolved the ORIGINAL TEXT jots and tittles ( שָׁבֻעִ֨ים ) yet? And speaking of wasted breath, I'm not holding mine ...

“... 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


King James Version, 1611:
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
​

Please obey Scripture.

Thanks,
DaDad

Strong's doesn't have a problem.

 

[DaDad]

Strong's doesn't have a problem.

Well then, perhaps "Strong's" will explain exactly how Young, Keil, & Kliefoth's analysis of the jots and tittles are to be interpreted so that out of the "20x" instances of "weeks", ALL are Feminine with the exception of Daniel 9 which are Masculine.

So when you have the "jots and tittles" resolved, please inform the rest of us:

Daniel 9:24 -- שָׁבֻעִ֨ים
Daniel 10:3 -- שָׁבֻעִ֖ים ​

And if I might add, if these two words are "identical", then I guess a "cool" glass of water and a ride in a "cool" car are equally synonymous in their own way.

-- Could someone loan "jgr" a coat, gloves, and hat? I've offered him a ride in my FJ Cruiser, and he'll need them.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[jgr]

Young, Keil, & Kliefoth's analysis of the jots and tittles

Let's have a link to the "analysis" so Strong's can explain it.

 

[DaDad]

Let's have a link to the "analysis" so Strong's can explain it.

I'm not near as experienced with Hebrew as you are, and I know that a smart person can explain ANYTHING in simple terms to a less capable person. So if you would be so kind, please explain why one word with one set of jots and tittles is exactly the same as a SECOND word with a different set of jots and tittles.

As uneducated as I am, it would seem to me that TWO different words probably don't mean exactly the same thing. Otherwise there would only be ONE word for ONE definition. But as already explained, I'm not near as smart as other posters on this Forum.

Daniel 9:24 -- שָׁבֻעִ֨ים
Daniel 10:3 -- שָׁבֻעִ֖ים​

... And if I might add, -- where you asserted that all "20x" citations are "masculine", why does Strong's include "feminine" in the definition of the H7620 if there are NO feminine occurrences?

שָׁבוּעַ shâbûwaʻ, shaw-boo'-ah; or שָׁבֻעַ shâbuaʻ; also (feminine) שְׁבֻעָה shᵉbuʻâh​

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 1
7. Deu 16:9 x 2
8. Deu 16:10
9. Deu 16:16
10. 2Ch 8:13
11. Jer 5:24
12. Eze 45:21
13. Dan 9:24
14. Dan 9:25 x 1
15. Dan 9:25 x 2
16. Dan 9:26
17. Dan 9:27 x 1
18. Dan 9:27 x 2
19. Dan 10:2
20. Dan 10:3

To quote Elmer Fudd: "Hey...there's something awfully screwy going on around here."

Thanks,
DaDad