Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why is it 490 years rather than 70 weeks? Your system of interpretation really has a lot of loaded terms and conflated ideas rolled up into "seventy weeks".for the same reason that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 is not 490 days but rather 490 years.
They, being Cambridge University Bible Commentary writers, disagree with you. Are there more Anglican scholars in the world than there are Seventh Day Adventist ones?They munge up a number of details - but they are still sticking with 3.5 years as the apocalyptic time given.
As I said - that is the easy part. It is hard to find a scholar that does not get that point.
Just as it is hard to find actual Bible scholars that mess up the Daniel 9 seventy weeks to the point that it is not 490 days -- expanded out to 490 years.
Are there more Anglican scholars in the world than there are Seventh Day Adventist ones?
But you do say "all scholars" a lot and that makes it look as if you depend on majority opinion as your justification for the theories you're presenting. Majority opinions are not proof. Try finding proof for your claims in what the passages say.Look at my quotes - I am not quoting Adventist scholars.
But you do say "all scholars" a lot and that makes it look as if you depend on majority opinion as your justification for the theories you're presenting. Majority opinions are not proof. Try finding proof for your claims in what the passages say.
It isn't "all the bible scholars who look at Daniel 9" just some of them.
The original post bible quotes are "bible" but the comments are not and nor is the interpretative scheme.1. Notice the OP -- it is all Bible.
I know only a little about Seventh Day Adventists so I am not likely to waste time complaining about them or their scholars. My concern is what does the passage really say and what does it teach (if anything). Your concern appears to be to promote a particular theory of "end times" and if that is a SDA theory that is okay for SDA people. I am not SDA so I am not likely to leap blindly into the interpretive system that SDAs promote.2. I point out "other scholars" because people often resort to "well how many more scholars do Adventists have ... " -- as if the details here "are Adventist" and so hidden that only Adventists would know them.
Converting "Time and times and the dividing of times" from the KJV into 3.5 years is not as easy as you claim. It may mean a year and years and half a year and that could be construed to be three and a half years but that is a very shaky foundation for a system of beliefs.But I show that some of these details are so easy and obvious that not only are they in the Bible just as I show them - but people on all sides admit to seeing those same Bible details.
The original post bible quotes are "bible" but the comments are not
I am not SDA so I am not likely to leap blindly into the interpretive system that SDAs promote.
Converting "Time and times and the dividing of times" from the KJV into 3.5 years is not as easy as you claim.
I mean some, and probably less than 50%. I say that because Orthodox and Catholic as well as Protestant Main Line scholars would very likely disagree. They would constitute well over 50% of bible scholars.By "some" you apparently mean "nearly all"
John Calvin's commentary on Daniel does not support the theory you put forward. It does not make the seventy weeks into four hundred and ninety years. Concerning Daniel 9:24 he writes:... even you have not found a single one claiming that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 are only 490 days as if Daniel was living 490 days away from the baptism of Christ.
Well, not "Messiah the prince" but "the anointed one, the prince" which may or may not refer to Christ since "the anointed one" may refer to a king, a priest, a prophet, or some other who is anointed for some purpose.the text literally says that of the 70 weeks it is 69 weeks "until Messiah the prince". That is a big clue as to why all the Bible scholars "get it".
Well, BobRyan you have a view with which I disagree.
Do you see Michael as being Jesus there?Look at the text, think carefully:
Dan 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
Dan 7:10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
Dan 7:11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.
Dan 7:12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
See also:
Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
[1] Throne put/moved into place (it was in the Holy Place before, now in the Most Holy, see Revelation 3 & 4)
[2] The Father then sits, after having moved (see Revelation 3-5)
[3] myriads of angels are involved in this event, they minister in it
[4] judgment is going on, while events are still transpiring on earth, after Pagan roman empire breaks apart into ten, after the little horn arises, and before the second Advent of Jesus and the giving of the kingdom to Him
[5] books are opened (closed before this moment)
[6] what was the purpose of opening the books but to read in them, to search in them, to investigate matters from that which is written in them
[7] whoever was found (read therein, searched and seen therein from the investigation) therein the Lamb's book of life, would be "delivered", which means they were still on earth and events were still transpiring before the second Advent (see Revelation 14:6-7)
Daniel refers to the time of the 70th week, right before the Second Coming of Jesus, so his dates are NOT for years, but for days, and not for the Middle Ages!Step one was to notice enough details in Daniel 7 to see that it was going to be before the 2nd coming and after the fall of the Pagan Roman empire... also after the 1260 years of dark ages that Daniel 7 mentions when it says "times time and half a time". Because all apocalyptic prophecy - like that of Daniel 9 and the 70 weeks (490 literal years) -- uses day-for-year expansion/symbolism.
That 1260 years ended in 1798 so - the judgment would not start until sometime after 1798.
It is Daniel 8 that gives the more fine-tuned details for just when after 1798 that judgment would begin.
But in this thread - I am just interesting in getting "the basics" of the fact that Daniel 7 has these details.
1. The judgment includes the saints (just as does 2Cor 5:10 judgment)
2. The judgment is "an investigation" into the details of what is found written in the books of heaven. Just as Christ said "not everyone who says Lord lord will enter". Matthew 7
3. it is "before the Advent" of Christ - before the second coming
Thus the short hand term "pre-advent investigative judgment"
Daniel 7 forms the preface and context for Daniel 8. Daniel 8 magnifies the details already given to provide even more detail on the topic within the Daniel 7 framework.
Rev 14:6-7 reminds us that there comes a point when the message God sends to Earth looks like this "An everlasting gospel to preach to every nation..saying fear God and give glory to Him for the hour of His judgment HAS come"
The last week of Daniel is to happen right before the actual Second Coming itself!Well we start with Daniel 9 where every Bible scholar on the planet freely (a generalization) admits that
1. Dan 9 is apocalyptic text
2. Dan 9 is using day-for-year expansion
3. This 70 week, 490 year timeline works out to predict the first coming of Christ.
from 457 B.C. to A.D. 27 the baptism of Christ at 69 weeks (483 years) and the remaining 7 years including the 3 and one half year ministry of Christ at which point He is "cut off" - crucified... and the remaining 3.5 years taking us to the stoning of Stephen and the start of Paul's ministry to the gentiles.
Hi BobRyan,...
Dan 7:1-8 provides a time frame for it - by progressing through 4 world empires ...
It's interesting that the U.N. presently has a plan for having ten kings:23 “Thus he said: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it. 24 As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings. ...
The Judgment completes before the second coming. Once it does complete - we have the second coming.
Indeed all are sinners (Rom 3:23) - all need the Gospel.
Now find some response to the actual texts given in first two posts... or keep admitting that you have nothing to offer but "rant" and diatribe pejoratives.
Consider this for a moment. The Seventh-day Adventist church is one of the fastest growing Christian denominations in the world according to Christianity Today -- you my friend might be in a position to shed some light for those new would-be Adventist "interests" -- IF you could offer them more substance than "rant alone" or than "avoid the texts that are the substance of this topic"
The more you do that - the more you convince them that maybe the SDA position really is right after all... maybe all the opposition has is hot air, desk pounding, harrumph!! and avoid-the-texts-because-they-show-the-SDA-position-to-be-correct.
Why not try a compelling response that is capable of "dealing with the details in scripture" already given here?? Think of all those people that could help.
Consider a well thought out compelling response.
This could be your moment to really excel on this topic.
Oh how true and how often we see creative writing and musing speculation rather than the pure quote of the Word of God on some topics. Amen to that!!
I merely quote Daniel 7 I offer no prophetic insight - just the text.
If you are inserting 1 John 4 to warn us to beware of Daniel 7 ... then you are out on a limb my friend. Daniel is a good Bible prophet as it turns out.
When one is at war 'with the text' then the "mere quote of the text" is sufficient cause to give rise to strong objection to it.
I mean some, and probably less than 50%. I say that because Orthodox and Catholic as well as Protestant Main Line scholars would very likely disagree. They would constitute well over 50% of bible scholars. John Calvin's commentary on Daniel does not support the theory you put forward. It does not make the seventy weeks into four hundred and ninety years. Concerning Daniel 9:24 he writes:
This passage has been variously treated, and so distracted, and almost torn to pieces by the various opinions of interpreters, that it might be considered nearly useless on account of its obscurity. But, in the assurance that no prediction is really in vain, we may hope to understand this prophecy, provided only we are attentive and teachable according to the angel's admonition, and the Prophet's example. I do not usually refer to conflicting opinions, because I take no pleasure in refuting them, and the simple method which I adopt pleases me best, namely, to expound what I think delivered by the Spirit of God. But I cannot escape the necessity of confuting' various views of the present passage.Calvin has no time for what he sees as Jewish interpretations. What he himself believes is expressed later. He writes (still about Daniel 9:24)
I will begin with the Jews, because they not only pervert its sense through ignorance, but through shameful impudence. Whenever they're exposed to the light which shines from Christ, they instantly turn their backs in utter shamelessness, and display a complete want of ingenuousness. They are like dogs who are satisfied with barking. In this passage especially, they betray their petulance, because with brazen forehead they elude the Prophet's meaning. Let us observe, then, what they think, for we should condemn them to little purpose, unless we can convict them by reasons equally firm and certain. When Jerome relates the teaching of the Jews who lived before his own day, he attributes to them greater modesty and discretion then their later descendants have displayed. He reports their confession, that this passage cannot be understood otherwise than of the advent of Messiah, that perhaps Jerome was unwilling to meet them in open conflict, as he was not fully persuaded of its necessity, and therefore he assumed more than they had allowed. I think this very probable, for he does not let fall a single word as to what interpretation he approves, and excuses himself for bringing forward all kinds of opinions without any prejudice on his part. Hence, he dares not pronounce whether or not the Jewish interpreters are more correct than either the Greek or the Latin, but leaves his readers entirely in suspense. Besides, it is very clear that all the Rabbis expounded this prophecy of Daniel's, of that continual punishment which God was about to inflict upon his people after their return from captivity. Thus, they entirely exclude the grace of God, and blame the Prophet, as if he had committed an error in thinking that God would be propitious to these miserable exiles, by restoring them to their homes and by rebuilding their Temple. According to their view, the seventy weeks began at the destruction of the former Temple, and closed at the overthrow of the second. In one point they agree with us, -- in considering the Prophet to reckon the weeks not by days but by years, as in Leviticus. (Leviticus 25:8.) There is no difference between us and the Jews in numbering the years; they confess the number of years to be 490, but disagree with us entirely as to the close of the prophecy. They say -- as I have already hinted -- the continual calamities which oppressed the people are here predicted. The Prophet hoped the end of their troubles was fast approaching, as God had testified by Jeremiah his perfect satisfaction with the seventy years of captivity. They say also -- the people were miserably harassed by their enemies again overthrowing their second Temple; thus they were deprived of their homes, and the ruined city became a sorrowful spectacle of devastation and disaster. In this way, I showed how they excluded the grace of God; and to sum up their teaching shortly, this is its substance, -- the Prophet is deceived in thinking the state of the Church would improve at the close of the seventy years, because seventy weeks still remained; that is, God multiplied the number in this way, for the purpose of chastising them, until at length he would abolish the city and the Temple, disperse their nation over the whole earth and destroy their very name, until at length the Messiah whom they expected should arrive.This is their interpretation, but all history refutes both their ignorance and their rashness. For, as we shall afterwards observe, all who are endued with correct judgement will scarcely approve of this, because all historians relate the lapse of a longer period between the monarchy of Cyrus, and the Persians, and the coming of Christ, than Daniel here computes.
The Jews again include the years which occurred from the ruin of the former Temple to the advent of Christ, and the final overthrow of their city. Hence, according to the commonly received opinion, they heap together about six hundred years. I shall afterwards state how far I approve of this computation, and how far I differ from it. Clearly enough, however, the Jews are both shamefully deceived and deceive others, when they thus heap together different periods without any judgement.
We now understand why the angel does not use the reckoning' of years, or months, or days, but weeks of years, because this has a tacit reference to the penalty which the people had endured according to the prophecy of Jeremiah. On the other hand, this displays God's great loving kindness, since he manifests a regard for his people up to the period of his setting forth their promised salvation in his Christ. Seventy weeks, then, says he, were finished upon thy people, and upon thy holy city I do not approve of the view of Jerome, who thinks this an allusion to the rejection of the people; as if he had said, the people is thine and not mine. I feel sure this is utterly contrary to the Prophet's intention. He asserts the people and city to be here called Daniel's, because God had divorced his people and rejected his city. But, as I said before, God wished to bring some consolation to his servant and all the pious, and to prop them up by this confidence during their oppression by their enemies. For God had already fixed the time of sending the Redeemer. The people and the city are said to belong to Daniel, because, as we saw before, the Prophet was anxious for the common safety of His nation, and the restoration of the city and Temple. Lastly, the angel confirms his previous expression -- God listened to his servant's prayer, and promulgated the prophecy of future redemption. The clause which follows convicts the Jews of purposely corrupting Daniel's words and meaning, because the angel says, the time was finished for putting an end to wickedness, and for sealing up sins, and for expiating iniquity We gather from this clause, God's compassionate feelings for His people after these seventy weeks were over. For what purpose did God determine that time? Surely to prohibit sin, to close up wickedness, and to expiate iniquity. We observe no continuance of punishment here, as the Jews vainly imagine; for they suppose God always hostile to his people, and they recognize a sign of most grievous offense in the utter destruction of the Temple. The Prophet, or rather the angel, gives us quite the opposite view of the case, by explaining how God wished to finish and close up their sin, and to expiate their iniquity He afterwards adds, to bring in everlasting righteousness We first perceive how joyful a message is brought forward concerning the reconciliation of the people with God; and next, something promised far better and more excellent than anything which had been granted under the law, and even under the flourishing times of the Jews under David and Solomon. The angel here encourages the faithful to expect something better than what their fathers, whom God had adopted, had experienced. There is a kind of contrast between the expiation's under the law and this which the angel announces, and also between the pardon here promised and that which God had always given to his ancient people; and there is also the same contrast between the eternal righteousness and that which flourished under the law.My apologies for the long quotes but you did want something that differed from your stated theory.
He next adds, To seal up the vision and the prophecy Here the word "to seal" may be taken in two senses. Either the advent of Christ should sanction whatever had been formerly predicted -- and the metaphor will imply this well enough -- or we may take it otherwise, namely:, the vision shall be sealed up, and so finally closed that all prophecies should cease. Barbinel thinks he points out a great absurdity here, by stating it to be by no means in accordance with God's character, to deprive his Church of the remarkable blessing of prophecy. But that blind man does not comprehend the force of the prophecy, because he does not understand anything about Christ. We know the law to be distinguished from the gospel by this peculiarity,-they formerly had a long course of prophecy according to the language of the Apostle. (Hebrews 1:1.) God spake formerly in various ways by prophets, but in these last times by his only-begotten Son. Again, the law and the prophets existed until John, says Christ. (Matthew 11:11-13; Luke 16:16; Luke 7:28.) Barbinel does not perceive this difference, and as I have formerly said, he thinks he has discovered an argument against us, by asserting that the gift of prophecy ought not to be taken away. And, truly, we ought not to be deprived of this gift, unless God desired to increase the privilege of the new people, because the least in the kingdom of heaven is superior in privilege to all the prophets, as Christ elsewhere pronounces. He next adds, that the Holy of Holies may be anointed Here, again, we have a tacit contrast between the anointings of the law, and the last which should take place. Not only is consolation here offered to all the pious, as God was about to mitigate the punishment which he had inflicted, but because he wished to pour forth the fullness of all his pity upon the new Church. For, as I have said, the Jews cannot escape this comparison on the part of the angel between the state of the Church under the legal and the new covenants; for the latter privileges were to be far better, more excellent, and more desirable, than those existing in the ancient Church from its commencement. But the rest tomorrow.
Well, not "Messiah the prince" but "the anointed one, the prince" which may or may not refer to Christ since "the anointed one" may refer to a king, a priest, a prophet, or some other who is anointed for some purpose.
Why is it 490 years rather than 70 weeks? Your system of interpretation really has a lot of loaded terms and conflated ideas rolled up into "seventy weeks".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?