I just now saw your previous POST, so FIRST OF ALL, allow me to thank you for your considered reply! Secondly, please allow me to respond accordingly:
QUOTE:
@Jay Ross
Congratulations Bobby Jo, you have put up some words for people to consider which contains your wisdom of your understanding of some verses in Daniel. 9.
1. Dan. 9:2 specifies "years".
We are agreed.
2. Dan. 9:2 does not use the simple shama to perceive the prophecy of Jeremiah as though reading that book, but rather the Solomon biyn (Ref. 1 Kings 3) to perceive the prophecy in the BOOKS.
Yes you are right that “haš·šā·nîm” is not the simple form as you have put it of the Hebrew Root from which it is generated, “shanah.” Also the Hebrew word used to describe how Daniel came to understand from the book that the period of time that Israel would be in exile in Babylon would be 70 years. The Hebrew word is “bî·nō·ṯî” in Daniel. 9:2 whereas in 1 Kings. 3:9 the Hebrew word is “lə·hā·ḇîn”, in verse 11 it is “hā·ḇîn”, in verse 12 it is “wə·nā·ḇō·wn”, and in verse 21 it is “wā·’eṯ·bō·w·nên” all of which have embedded in these Hebrew words the Hebrew root, H:0995, “biyn” or “bin”.
It seems to me that you are on thin ice with your 2nd point.
Let me expound. Jesus says that when a person is invited to dine with a King, to sit at the far end of the table so that you can be honored when the King asks you to sit closer, versus being dishonored by being moved down. As such, in 1 Kings 3, Solomon merely asked for shama, but GOD gave him "what he asked for" which was actually the Solomon Wisdom biyn which is the same as the 9:2 diction. This suggests that Daniel did NOT read from the Book of Jeremiah, but instead found the Seventy Years in some other O.T. Book, -- specifically the Psalms, which has the requisite minimum 70 Chapters.
3. Per Young, the Dan. 9:25
"going forth of the word" does NOT have the inference of an edict from a man/king, but rather an edict directly from GOD.
You may well be right on this point.
Actually YOUNG is correct in his assertion, and the PSALMS validates this premise.
4. The Dan. 9:25 "seven" is one duration with an anointed one "coming" after that duration.
The usual translations of verse 25 is: -
"... There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks ... "
Which suggest that the time duration described in this verse is 69 weeks of years.
There is NO PRECEDENT either in Scripture or in ANY SOCIETY where a pair of shoes cost ~seven and sixty-two dollars~ plus tax.
The CORRECT translation is:
RSV: ... 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. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing ...
5. The Dan. 9:25-26 sixty-two weeks is a second duration with a second anointed one who is cut off after that duration.
It seems to me that you are focusing on Daniel 9:26a in this point only and is independent of verse 25.
It's Scriptural and Historical, -- versus the FALSE contortions which are "Jesus Agenda" driven.
6. The "weeks" are the inconcise Masculine gender text, which are specifically NOT 490 years.
Not sure what your point is here.
The commentators interpret the text as though it were the USUAL CONCISE Feminine Gender text, which is found in all the other 14 instances. But these 6 citations in Dan 9, and ONLY DAN 9, are in the UNUSUAL INCONCISE Masculine Gender text. It's like asserting that you drive four cars (CONCISE). But you actually drive a: car, a motorcycle, a truck, and a van. Thus you don't have four CARS, but you DO have FOUR VEHICLES.
In Dan 9:2, one duration is a "year" and a second duration is a "week". And when the commentators assign a CONCISE "seven" for all seventy DURATIONS, they defy the INCONCISE text which Scripture actually presents. So the 490 is a LIE!
7. The second anointed one who is cut off is not killed upon the sixty-two, but simply AFTER.
I would agree with this point.
8. The destroyer does not come at the beginning, middle, or upon the end of the seventieth shabuwa, but "shall come" after the seventieth shabuwa.
There is a need for further information to be able to understand the point you are making.
... and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”
9. The seven, the sixty-two, the seventieth, and after the seventieth are chronologically connected, with NO ~2,000 year gap.
You are right, there is no 2,000 years gap inserted between verse 26 and verse 27, the gap is closer to 3,000 years.
You are incorrect on TWO counts. The first is that I used an "~" approximate symbol. Secondly, there are NO GAPs either in Dan 9 or Dan 11. The angel makes it clear that ALL these prophecies are for the time of the end, and you make the angel a liar.
10. This prophecy is shut up and sealed until the time of the end, which is approximate to 1948.
This statement with no scriptures to substantiate it, is a bold claim. Scriptural evidence to support your assertion is required before it would be accepted by others.
It has FULL Scriptural support -- which you are oblivious to, so your position is an unsubstantiated bold claim.
All you have to do is consider if 12:4 "ancients" had 60 to 600mph travel; or whether the "ancients" had INSTANT INFORMATION at their fingertips.
12:4 ... Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”
... and of course there are other aspects which must be included, but these are basic aspects which any student of Prophecy should be aware of, but seldom are ...
As usual you have a barb in your post to finish off with. Are you so discerning of the word that only you have the wisdom of Solomon to understand what has been recorded?
Yes and no. I depend heavily on Scripture, HONEST Scholars, and Revelation. But REVELATION NEVER EXCEEDS what the Scripture say and what the Scholars explain what the Scriptures say.
Take for example 1:21 & 10:1. Calvin acknowledges that his expositors are stumped by the word היה, haiah,by to be “broken;” but then throws out the LITERAL TEXT in favor of "historical convenience". But 1:21 & 10:1 are PERFECTLY CORRECT that Daniel DIED in the FIRST YEAR of Cyrus, but was still alive in the THIRD YEAR of Cyrus, King of Persia. (Same Cyrus, same Daniel.)
So to your point, do your have sufficient WISDOM to explain exactly how 1:21 & 10:1 are PERFECTLY CORRECT?
But I
DO appreciate you taking the time to consider what is being proposed, and hope that we can continue a meaningful conversation!
Bobby Jo