Sir Robert Anderson's Dates ???

[MoreCoffee]

Daniel 9:

2. In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

23. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

In the spirit of the truth of 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.

That is the spirit, or attitude, of what we are to build on and from...

Not Josephus, nor Darby, nor Gerstner, nor Stam, nor Stout, nor whomever else comes along tomorrow...

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures" - Acts 17:2.

Now that is a stretch indeed. The 70 years were prophesied by Jeremiah as 70 years and they relate to the exile in Babylon. Those 70 years are not "ten sevens" or "ten weeks" they are real years and as such are called years. Nor are they 70 years of 360 days amounting to 25,200 days that are really years. The absurdity of picking this and that number and calling it a number of years is revealed by the very selectivity used by the advocates of such fanciful interpretations. Beware of Sir Robert Anderson's method.

 

[1michael1]

Now that is a stretch indeed. The 70 years were prophesied by Jeremiah as 70 years and they relate to the exile in Babylon. Those 70 years are not "ten sevens" or "ten weeks" they are real years and as such are called years. Nor are they 70 years of 360 days amounting to 25,200 days that are really years. The absurdity of picking this and that number and calling it a number of years is revealed by the very selectivity used by the advocates of such fanciful interpretations. Beware of Sir Robert Anderson's method.

I also chose my interpretation method very carefully. I used Leviticus.

What did you use?

How long is seventy weeks to you?

Gabriel uses the same word roots in Daniel 9 that God does in Leviticus 25. The only difference is the necessary Hebrew endings for the plural compound morphological change from 7 to 70. That's all.

ş̌bʻym ş̌bʻym nẖţk ʻl־ ʻmk ׀ wʻl־ ʻyr qdş̌k lklʼ hpş̌ʻwlẖţmwlhţmẖtʼwţẖtʼţ wlkpr ʻwn wlhbyʼ ẕdq ʻlmym wlẖţm ẖzwn wnbyʼ wlmş̌ẖ qdş̌ qdş̌ym -- Daniel 9:24

wsprţ lk ş̌bʻ ş̌bţţ ş̌nym ş̌bʻ ş̌nym ş̌bʻ pʻmym whyw lk ymy ş̌bʻ ş̌bţţ hş̌nym ţş̌ʻ wʼrbʻym ş̌nh -- Leviticus 25:8
​

 

[1michael1]

This is an example of the formal fallacy of argumentum ad logicam, which is to conclude that if there is a fallacy in an argument, a conclusion must necessarily be false. This isn't true. One might argue in a fallacious way, but the conclusion might somehow end up being true, even though the syllogism formally expressing it is false.

For example,

Sir Robert Anderson's dates are found to be fallacious. Therefore, the conclusion is that his basis of 490 years is also fallacious.
​

This is an example of the formal fallacy of argumentum ad logicam. For just because Anderson's arguments for the dates of the 490 years may be fallacious in no way does anything to disprove the thesis that Daniel's 70 weeks is actually referring to 490 years.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I also chose my interpretation method very carefully. I used Leviticus.

What did you use?

How long is seventy weeks to you?

Gabriel uses the same word roots in Daniel 9 that God does in Leviticus 25. The only difference is the necessary Hebrew endings for the plural compound morphological change from 7 to 70. That's all.

ş̌bʻym ş̌bʻym nẖţk ʻl־ ʻmk ׀ wʻl־ ʻyr qdş̌k lklʼ hpş̌ʻwlẖţmwlhţmẖtʼwţẖtʼţ wlkpr ʻwn wlhbyʼ ẕdq ʻlmym wlẖţm ẖzwn wnbyʼ wlmş̌ẖ qdş̌ qdş̌ym -- Daniel 9:24

wsprţ lk ş̌bʻ ş̌bţţ ş̌nym ş̌bʻ ş̌nym ş̌bʻ pʻmym whyw lk ymy ş̌bʻ ş̌bţţ hş̌nym ţş̌ʻ wʼrbʻym ş̌nh -- Leviticus 25:8
​

seventy weeks? The passage says "seventy sevens" and it may be of days or of something else. One can pick years if one wishes to but the passage itself will give you no help with that. Now my question for you is why do you think these seventy sevens are significant for the coming of Christ or for end times of any sort? All the passage says is:

Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and for your holy city: Then transgression will stop and sin will end, guilt will be expiated, Everlasting justice will be introduced, vision and prophecy ratified, and a most holy will be anointed. Know and understand this: From the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt Until one who is anointed and a leader, there shall be seven weeks. During sixty-two weeks it shall be rebuilt, With streets and trenches, in time of affliction. After the sixty-two weeks an anointed shall be cut down when he does not possess the city; And the people of a leader who will come shall destroy the sanctuary. Then the end shall come like a torrent; until the end there shall be war, the desolation that is decreed. For one week he shall make a firm compact with the many; Half the week he shall abolish sacrifice and oblation; On the temple wing shall be the horrible abomination until the ruin that is decreed is poured out upon the horror. Daniel 9:24-27​

So Jerusalem fall in 586 BC, 70 years of exile brings us to 516 BC, now when do you theorise that "the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt Until one who is anointed and a leader, there shall be seven weeks" happened? and seven weeks is 49 years is it not? The exile from Babylon ended in 536 BC according to history since that is the date that Babylon fall and the Medes and Persians began to rule. Anyway, you tell me the story. It is your side of the conversation, after all.

 

[1michael1]

seventy weeks? The passage says "seventy sevens" and it may be of days or of something else. One can pick years if one wishes to but the passage itself will give you no help with that. Now my question for you is why do you think these seventy sevens are significant for the coming of Christ or for end times of any sort? All the passage says is:

Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and for your holy city: Then transgression will stop and sin will end, guilt will be expiated, Everlasting justice will be introduced, vision and prophecy ratified, and a most holy will be anointed. Know and understand this: From the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt Until one who is anointed and a leader, there shall be seven weeks. During sixty-two weeks it shall be rebuilt, With streets and trenches, in time of affliction. After the sixty-two weeks an anointed shall be cut down when he does not possess the city; And the people of a leader who will come shall destroy the sanctuary. Then the end shall come like a torrent; until the end there shall be war, the desolation that is decreed. For one week he shall make a firm compact with the many; Half the week he shall abolish sacrifice and oblation; On the temple wing shall be the horrible abomination until the ruin that is decreed is poured out upon the horror. Daniel 9:24-27​

So Jerusalem fall in 586 BC, 70 years of exile brings us to 516 BC, now when do you theorise that "the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt Until one who is anointed and a leader, there shall be seven weeks" happened? and seven weeks is 49 years is it not? The exile from Babylon ended in 536 BC according to history since that is the date that Babylon fall and the Medes and Persians began to rule. Anyway, you tell me the story. It is your side of the conversation, after all.

So you're saying that 'seven weeks' is 49 years?

If so, then what is the

". . . and sixty weeks weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times."
​

If seven weeks means 49 years in Daniel 9 and Leviticus 25, then how much does 62 weeks add up to?

Do I err in saying that it means 434 years, or did Gabriel change his usage mid-sentence?

 

[Danoh]

No Anderson here.

And my point was the Angel Gabriel giving Daniel an understanding of some other things. While Daniel's concern had been where things stood as Jeremiah's 70 years were nearing their end.

I may be off on this. I try to keep an open mind no matter what I conclude.

Am presently taking apart afresh my understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2, for example, more towards what I have been seeing there for some years now that is, in some ways, very different from both Acts Two and my own, basically, a Mid-Acts Dispensational [Acts9] hermeneutic [see pdf below].

 

[BABerean2]

On the old TV show "Dragnet", officer Joe Friday always wanted just the facts.

When attempting to solve a crime several suspects may be revealed. As the case proceeds more and more evidence may be attributed to one suspect. Normally the suspect with the most evidence against him is the one who is believed to be the perpetrator.

Since we know God's Word is the truth, the viewpoint that matches up with the most scripture is normally the truth. A conflict between any two verses should make us suspicious that we could be wrong on the wrong path.

Unfortunately, Bible study, especially eschatology does not always follow the same rules of logic.

Many times we go with what our 80 year old seminary professor taught us 60 years ago, because... "He was a good student of our system of interpretation."

In this thread we started with Anderson's method and date which was accepted by many for a long period of time.

We have now included the word's of Christ in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 about the Abomination of Desolation and Jerusalem being surrounded by armies in 70 AD.

We also have the modern scholarship of Herod's death in 4 BC and it's effect on the timing of Christ's birth and the 46 years required to build Herod's temple (quoted in the Gospels), which began in 20 BC.

Joh_2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?


We explored the reign of Tiberius given in the text and also added the current knowledge about his becoming co-precept in 11 or 12 AD.

We have also argued the meaning of the 70 weeks.

What would Joe Friday conclude by looking at all of the evidence?

Just the facts...

Which date for the year of the Christ's sacrifice on the Cross matches most of our evidence?

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

seventy weeks? The passage says "seventy sevens" and it may be of days or of something else. One can pick years if one wishes to but the passage itself will give you no help with that. Now my question for you is why do you think these seventy sevens are significant for the coming of Christ or for end times of any sort? All the passage says is:

Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and for your holy city: Then transgression will stop and sin will end, guilt will be expiated, Everlasting justice will be introduced, vision and prophecy ratified, and a most holy will be anointed. Know and understand this: From the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt Until one who is anointed and a leader, there shall be seven weeks. During sixty-two weeks it shall be rebuilt, With streets and trenches, in time of affliction. After the sixty-two weeks an anointed shall be cut down when he does not possess the city; And the people of a leader who will come shall destroy the sanctuary. Then the end shall come like a torrent; until the end there shall be war, the desolation that is decreed. For one week he shall make a firm compact with the many; Half the week he shall abolish sacrifice and oblation; On the temple wing shall be the horrible abomination until the ruin that is decreed is poured out upon the horror. Daniel 9:24-27​

So Jerusalem fall in 586 BC, 70 years of exile brings us to 516 BC, now when do you theorise that "the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt Until one who is anointed and a leader, there shall be seven weeks" happened? and seven weeks is 49 years is it not? The exile from Babylon ended in 536 BC according to history since that is the date that Babylon fall and the Medes and Persians began to rule. Anyway, you tell me the story. It is your side of the conversation, after all.

So you're saying that 'seven weeks' is 49 years?

If so, then what is the

". . . and sixty weeks weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times."​

If seven weeks means 49 years in Daniel 9 and Leviticus 25, then how much does 62 weeks add up to?

Do I err in saying that it means 434 years, or did Gabriel change his usage mid-sentence?

Q: So you're saying that 'seven weeks' is 49 years?
A: No, it is the theory you've adopted that says it is 49 years so I posed a hypothetical based on that theory.

Q: what is the ... and sixty weeks weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times?
A: It looks like a misquote on your part. The passage says "During sixty-two weeks it shall be rebuilt, With streets and trenches, in time of affliction." But if you want to know how many years the theory you're advocating would calculate then it would be 434 years. Of course I doubt that such was the intention of the author of the words.

Q: If seven weeks means 49 years in Daniel 9 and Leviticus 25, then how much does 62 weeks add up to?
A: Who said anything about Leviticus 25? Not me. But you've repeated your question really haven't you if you asking about the 62 again. The answer is above in the answer to your previous question.

Care to answer my questions now?

• my question for you is why do you think these seventy sevens are significant for the coming of Christ or for end times of any sort?
• when do you theorise that "the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt Until one who is anointed and a leader, there shall be seven weeks" happened?

 

[1michael1]

i. Dan. 9:24-27; Matt. 24:15-15
ii. 457 BC

 

[MoreCoffee]

i. Dan. 9:24-27; Matt. 24:15-15
ii. 457 BC

okay, assuming the year you've stipulated (457 BC) what do you say happened then? Why do you contend that 457 BC fulfils "From the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt ..."

Cyrus decreed that the Israelites were to return to Judea and rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:1; 5:13; 6:3) and the people also built their own houses but left the walls of the city unfinished and the work was still in progress some years later as stated in Ezra 6:14.

Cyrus issued his decree around 538 BC so 457 BC seems to be around 81 years later give or take a little. 81 would be 77 + 4, that is, 11 sevens plus 4. Daniel doesn't mention anything about eleven sevens does he?

The second temple was completed in 515 BC according to the The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Here is what it says:

Ez 6:15. date of completion.

Such an important event as the completion of the second temple required careful recording. The date provided places it in the twelfth Babylonian calendar month, Adar, which would have been in February-March. The sixth year of Darius would have been 515 B.C., and the third day of the month of Adar would make the completion date March 12, 515. It should be noted that 1Es 7:5 and Josephus both place the date on the twenty-third of Adar, and this has been preferred by some since the third was a Sabbath.​

Since Daniel says Know and understand this: From the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt Until one who is anointed and a leader, there shall be seven weeks. and according to the one seven is seven years theory that would be 49 years, right? 49 years after 538 BC is 489 BC. Is that date part of the theory? Is 538 BC in the theory? Is 515 BC in the theory?

 

[Danoh]

On the old TV show "Dragnet", officer Joe Friday always wanted just the facts.

When attempting to solve a crime several suspects may be revealed. As the case proceeds more and more evidence may be attributed to one suspect. Normally the suspect with the most evidence against him is the one who is believed to be the perpetrator.

Since we know God's Word is the truth, the viewpoint that matches up with the most scripture is normally the truth. A conflict between any two verses should make us suspicious that we could be wrong on the wrong path.

Unfortunately, Bible study, especially eschatology does not always follow the same rules of logic.

Many times we go with what our 80 year old seminary professor taught us 60 years ago, because... "He was a good student of our system of interpretation."

In this thread we started with Anderson's method and date which was accepted by many for a long period of time.

We have now included the word's of Christ in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 about the Abomination of Desolation and Jerusalem being surrounded by armies in 70 AD.

We also have the modern scholarship of Herod's death in 4 BC and it's effect on the timing of Christ's birth and the 46 years required to build Herod's temple (quoted in the Gospels), which began in 20 BC.

Joh_2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?


We explored the reign of Tiberius given in the text and also added the current knowledge about his becoming co-precept in 11 or 12 AD.

We have also argued the meaning of the 70 weeks.

What would Joe Friday conclude by looking at all of the evidence?

Just the facts...

Which date for the year of the Christ's sacrifice on the Cross matches most of our evidence?

.

Joe Friday would do the possible only in TV land - solve it all one twenty minute episode only to be made to look slower than a drunk snail carrying heavy groceries while weighted down by ankle weights by comparison to TV sponsors - those marvelous ad men able to leap tall buildings in a single bound and solve for the myriad of problems faced by the American housewife in less than 30 seconds flat - with room to spare for as many as four more sponsors to do even better

The only "fact" is that we all die, and as a result, long after we are gone, others will solve for the inadequacies of our understanding regardless of school of thought.

Real detectives too..

"Cut! Let's try that again..."

In short, we're better off comparing findings with another, not ourselves.

 

[dull bot]

I will ask the preterists here again:

Why do preterists repeatedly and deliberately spread half of the Historicist lie that Futurism was formulated as counter-Reformation propaganda despite being repeatedly shown that the earliest Church held to futurist premillennialism?

Why do preterists keep telling lies even though they know the truth of the matter?

-Tim

 

[dull bot]

I expect the preterists here involved to apologize for spreading the following well-known lie:

"Your topic will probably get a few yawns from modern futurists who dont know where their theories come from, and yet, these calculations are the very basis of the 7-year endtime scenario. Darby and others dreamed up the doctrine, but Anderson supplied the calendrical 'proof.'"

There are two of you here who have incorrectly condemned us for not knowing our history. It is YOU who do not know our history. And I'll bet YOU don't know your own Gnostic history either. And, no, Gnostic heretics are not my brothers. They deny the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants.

-Tim

 

[Danoh]

I expect the preterists here involved to apologize for spreading the following well-known lie:

"Your topic will probably get a few yawns from modern futurists who dont know where their theories come from, and yet, these calculations are the very basis of the 7-year endtime scenario. Darby and others dreamed up the doctrine, but Anderson supplied the calendrical 'proof.'"

There are two of you here who have incorrectly condemned us for not knowing our history. It is YOU who do not know our history. And I'll bet YOU don't know your own Gnostic history either. And, no, Gnostic heretics are not my brothers. They deny the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants.

-Tim

Most on here do not come to the aid of those they perceive differ with their views.

And most overlook when those who hold to their view are off-base.

That is not me, as it should not be any of us.

In this, I ask you dull bot, do you not believe in the eternal security of the believer? If you do, then all who are in Christ are your brother regardless of what doctrine they may have ended up at after the fact of their having trusted in Christ alone.

This would include those who at some point after having trusted Christ end up in the doctrine of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, you name it.

They are confused, but they remain our brothers and sisters in the Lord.

You may, or may not agree with that.

In which case, we can explore it if you care to.

In Him,

 

[Gnarwhal]

The Question is should Sir Robert Anderson’s dates be ignored

Yes.