Prophetic Chart from beginning unto the ending, Prophetic studies

[ReChoired]

Here's the answer from your Post #149:

שֶׁבַע

versus:

שָׁבוּעַ​

Hmmmmmmm, THEY LOOK DIFFERENT. Whoda thunk?
Bobby Jo

Have you considered Matthew 18:22 as translated into Hebrew, "שבעים ושבע"; "שִׁבְעִים וָשֶׁבַע"(Salkinson-Ginsburg; Dalman-Delitzsch)? Which matches Daniel 9:24, "שָׁבֻעִים שִׁבְעִים"? Just as I stated they paralleled?

What about Genesis 4:24, "שִׁבְעִים וְשִׁבְעָה"?

Do you understand the diacritics and their function?

 

[Bobby Jo]

Belated edit, RePosted:

...

If you use the "Blue Letter Bible", the jots and tittles are EXACTLY the SAME for the "sevens" in Exodus 34:22 as in Dan. 9:24. "Strong's" makes the same mistake, using a generic text instead of the concise text as found in the J.P. Green Sr. interlinear. And as such BOTH the "Blue Letter" and "Strongs" sources are flawed, but the J.P Steven's interlinear CORRECTLY shows DIFFERENT jots and tittles.

And Young, Keil, and Kliefoth hold that the distinctions for ALL SCRIPTURE is the CONCISE FEMININE, -- with the sole exceptions for Daniel 9 which are the INCONCISE MASCULINE.


But I really don't think you care. FACTS are inconvenient for your FALSE doctrines!

Bobby Jo

 

[ReChoired]

...But I really don't think you care. ...

Again, your opinion. You sure like to cite "you" alot as authority.

 

[Bobby Jo]

Again, ...

The J.P. Stevens Interlinear along with the assertions by Young, Keil, & Kliefoth has proved you wrong. -- Now prove them wrong by citing the exact same jots and tittles used in the Dan. 9 "weeks" with any other "weeks" citation.


And by the way, the rest of Daniel 9, along with the Psalms and History, supports a different fulfillment than we're all taught. The only question is whether we are OPEN to the TRUTH or whether our doctrines have blinded us FROM the TRUTH.

Bobby Jo

 

[ReChoired]

The J.P. Stevens Interlinear along with the assertions by Young, Keil, & Kliefoth has proved you wrong. -- Now prove them wrong by citing the exact same jots and tittles ...

You do realize that neither "jot" (ιωτα' G2503) nor "tittle" (κεραια; G2762)(Matthew 5:18) are the diacritics?

A "jot" (ιωτα) is a whole Letter, such as the smallest Greek letter 'iota' (ί; 9th letter), and also to the Hebrew "letter" (not a diacritic), being the tenth letter of the Hebrew Aleph-Bet:

Psa 119:73 JOD. Thy hands have made me and fashioned me: give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments.​

A "tittle" (κεραια) is a reference to a 'hook', curved as a horn (https://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.php?lemma=κεραία), and is the smallest/least part of the whole Hebrew letter "jod" (yod), which is the "qotz":

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.​

The diacritics didn't come until later, as we can see from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have no diacritics, just look at the Isaiah Scroll:

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

Link

The silver Keteef Hinnom scrolls also have no diacritics:

None of the Steele's use diacritics:

Hezekiah's tunnel inscription:

Even the foreign nations surrounding Israel, didn't use the diacritics on their recording of the Hebrew, such as the Moabite Stone:

For instance, "... In 1624, Louis Cappel, a French Huguenot scholar at Saumur, published a work in which he concluded that the vowel points were a later addition to the biblical text and that the vowel points were added not earlier than the fifth century AD ..." - Hebrew diacritics - Wikipedia

The whole "jot" and "tittle" referring to diacritics is a modern myth.

 

[ReChoired]

The J.P. Stevens Interlinear along with the assertions by Young, Keil, & Kliefoth has proved you wrong. -- Now prove them wrong ...

You are confused, as I already addressed Keil, etc.

Brown's Drivers and Briggs Lexicon, "... Properly passive participle of H7650 as a denominative of H7651; [exactly as TWOT says] literally sevened, that is, a week (specifically of years):—seven, week. ..." - Strong's Number 7620 Hebrew Dictionary of the Old Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com

Albert Barnes, noted commentator, more than Keil or Kliefoth, states:

"... “The form which is used here,” says he, “which is a regular masculine plural, is no doubt purposely chosen to designate the plural of seven; and with great propriety here, inasmuch as there are many sevens which are to be joined together in one common sum. Daniel had been meditating on the close of the seventy “years” of Hebrew exile, and the angel now discloses to him a new period of “seventy times seven,” in which still more important events are to take place. Seventy sevens, or (to use the Greek phraseology), “seventy heptades,” are determined upon thy people.

Heptades of what? Of days, or of years? No one can doubt what the answer is. Daniel had been making diligent search respecting the seventy “years;” and, in such a connection, nothing but seventy heptades of years could be reasonably supposed to be meant by the angel.” The inquiry about the “gender” of the word, of which so much has been said (Hengstenberg, “Chris.” ii. 297), does not seem to be very important, since the same result is reached whether it be rendered “seventy sevens,” or “seventy weeks.” In the former case, as proposed by Prof. Stuart, it means seventy sevens of “years,” or 490 years; in the other, seventy “weeks” of years; that is, as a “week of years” is seven years, seventy such weeks, or as before, 490 years. The usual and proper meaning of the word used here, however - שׁבוּע shâbûa‛a is a “seven,” ἐβδομάς hebdomas, i. e., a week. - Gesenius, “Lexicon” From the “examples” where the word occurs it would seem that the masculine or the feminine forms were used indiscriminately. ..."
​

Joseph Benson, another noted commentator still used to this day:

"... Seventy weeks, &c. — Weeks not of days, but of years, or, seventy times seven years, that is, four hundred and ninety years, each day being accounted a year according to the prophetic way of reckoning, (see note on Dan_7:25,) a way often used in Scripture, especially in reckoning the years of jubilee, which correspond with these numbers in Daniel: see Lev_25:8. See also Gen_29:27, where, to fulfil her week, is explained by performing another seven years’ service for Rachel; and Num_14:34, where we read, that according to the number of the days which the spies employed in searching out the land of Canaan, even forty days, the Israelites were condemned to bear their iniquities, even forty years. Thus God says likewise to Ezekiel, contemporary with Daniel, I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days three hundred and ninety days. I have appointed thee EACH DAY FOR A YEAR. ..."
​

Genevan Bible translators:

"... (p) He alludes to Jeremiah's prophecy, who prophesied that their captivity would be seventy years: but now God's mercy would exceed his judgment seven times as much, which would be 490 years, even until the coming of Christ, and so then it would continue forever. ..."
​

Adam Clarke:

"... Seventy weeks are determined - The Jews had Sabbatic years, Lev_25:8, by which their years were divided into weeks of years, as in this important prophecy, each week containing seven years. The seventy weeks therefore here spoken of amount to four hundred and ninety years. ..."
​

John Gill:

"... and this space of "seventy" weeks is not to be understood of weeks of days; which is too short a time for the fulfilment of so many events as are mentioned; nor were they fulfilled within such a space of time; but of weeks of years, and make up four hundred and ninety years; within which time, beginning from a date after mentioned, all the things prophesied of were accomplished; and this way of reckoning of years by days is not unusual in the sacred writings; see Gen_29:27. The verb used is singular, and, joined with the noun plural, shows that every week was cut out and appointed for some event or another; and the word, as it signifies "to cut", aptly expresses the division, or section of these weeks into distinct periods, as seven, sixty two, and one. ..."
​

John Wesley:

"... Seventy weeks - These weeks are weeks of days, and these days are so many years. ..."​

and many, many others, as I can still cite.

 

[Bobby Jo]

You are confused, as I already addressed Keil, etc. ....

... and you threw their observations out the window. The issue is, -- EVERYTHING IN SCRIPTURE IS IMPORTANT.

So if we use YOUR interpretation of the seventy "sevens" we use the USUAL Concise Feminine Gender Text = 490. But GOD used the UNUSUAL INCONCISE MASCULINE Gender Text ≠ 490. And YOU have no explanation, but there IS an explanation.

So either YOU are smarter than GOD, or GOD is smarter than you. Which is it? -- The Masculine "sevens" is ONLY FOUND IN Dan. 9.
Bobby Jo

 

[ReChoired]

... and you threw their observations out the window. ...

No, what I basically said was that their 'find' refuted themselves.

I think you just quote things from others, and do not understand what you are citing.

Have you considered Matthew 18:22 as translated into Hebrew, "שבעים ושבע"; "שִׁבְעִים וָשֶׁבַע"(Salkinson-Ginsburg; Dalman-Delitzsch)? Which matches Daniel 9:24, "שָׁבֻעִים שִׁבְעִים"? Just as I stated they paralleled?

What about Genesis 4:24, "שִׁבְעִים וְשִׁבְעָה"?

Do you know that John Walvoord is specifically mentioned in the Jesuit-Futurism page I earlier cited? - The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism

Theodore Kliefoth was a (neo) Lutheran (see also commentary in the Berlenberger Bible).

Carl Freidrich Keil was another Lutheran (German) commentator (student of German Lutheran E. W. Henstengberg), who in tandem with Delitzsch applied Daniel 9:25-27 to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (see commentary of Keil and Delitzsch on Daniel 9:24) as a mere type, of which, according to them, is to have another fulfillment in a future 'reality' Antichrist that will fully do what Antiochus IV Epiphanes only did in type.

In such commentary, it is stated, "... Hofmann and Kliefoth are in the right when they remark that שָׁבֻעִים does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, whose chronological duration must be determined on other grounds. ...", but notice, that in so saying, this places the entire number into nebulous nothing. It makes of all the numbers into an unknown, unspecified 'future', whose landing is now entirely uncertain, having no solid numbers to speak, since they just stated that the 70, and yea also 7 are merely representational, and then so also the 3 1/2 and 3 1/2 of the final "7". It is all imaginary then, and to claim that the final "7" (one week) is not as the first "7" before the "62" is simply wishful thinking and begging the question.

Their entire commentary on this is their own speculation, and their own presuppositions.

Yet, there were many of their own (Lutherans, Germans, Commentators) and in their day which disagreed with them, and they cite as such(those who disagreed with them) in their commentary, saying, "... That by this word common years are to be understood, is indeed taken for granted by many interpreters. ...". Why take their opinion over others (as cited here and in their own commentary) their equal, or even better? For instance, the Genevan Bible in its notation states, "(p) He alludes to Jeremiah's prophecy, who prophesied that their captivity would be seventy years: but now God's mercy would exceed his judgment seven times as much, which would be 490 years, even until the coming of Christ, and so then it would continue forever."

Hengstenberg (German Lutheran) stated that the 70 7's, were “concealed definiteness”, not indefiniteness as Keil and Kliefoth.

Even Bullinger stated, "... The whole period is therefore 490 years. ..."

Why not just go with the plain text before us?

What is amazing, that such commentary as above, even agrees with the definition I cited previous on the word "determined" - " ... The ἁπ. λεγ. חָתַךְ means in Chald. to cut off, to cut up into pieces, then to decide, to determine closely, e.g., Targ. Est_4:5; cf. ..."

More interesting is that the same commentary says, "... seventy sevenths are to be viewed as a whole, as a continued period of seventy seven times following each other. ..." and they do not mention any 'gaps', but just cited their nebulous 70 x 7 as a "whole", each "7" "following each other".

 

[Bobby Jo]

... we can go on to validate other points of Daniel 9 which substantiate the Inconcise Masculine Gender interpretation. And each point, which are several, takes what your version cannot support either Scripturally or Historically, and finds a comprehensive interwoven depiction which is BOTH Scriptural and Historical. -- But it is hard to divest oneself from long held lies/myths/legends.

So first of all, we know that NOTHING works out, otherwise EVERYONE would be on the same page:

“New Bible Commentary: Revised.”
“This prophesy of the seventy sevens is one of the most difficult in the entire OT, and although the interpretations are almost legion, we shall confine ourselves to the discussion of three which may be regarded as of particular importance.”

Guthrie, D., & J.A. Motyer, New Bible Commentary: Revised, Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1970, p. 699

Note: According to the dictionary a legion consists of 3,000 to 6,000 foot soldiers, and 300 to 700 cavalry.​

Per Montgomery:

The history of the exegesis of the 70 Weeks is the Dismal Swamp of O. T. criticism. The difficulties that beset any "rationalistic" treatment of the figures are great enough, but the critics on this side of the fence do not agree among themselves; but the trackless wilderness of assumptions and theories and efforts to obtain an exact chronology fitting into the the history of Salvation, after these 2,000 years of infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of the 70 Weeks for the determination of a definite prophetic chronology. ... "

John Wolvoord, "Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation", Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 217​

The term "sticky wicket" comes to mind ...
Bobby Jo

 

[ReChoired]

...
The term "sticky wicket" comes to mind ...
Bobby Jo

It's why my position doesn't rely upon commentary, but the text and history itself.

 

[ReChoired]

“This prophesy of the seventy sevens is one of the most difficult in the entire OT, and although the interpretations are almost legion

The statement is patently false. See, for a good many (and others besides those which I also have all agree - Daniel 9:24 -

 

[ReChoired]

...
Per Montgomery:

The history of the exegesis of the 70 Weeks is the Dismal Swamp of O. T. criticism. The difficulties that beset any "rationalistic" treatment of the figures are great enough, but the critics on this side of the fence do not agree among themselves; but the trackless wilderness of assumptions and theories and efforts to obtain an exact chronology fitting into the the history of Salvation, after these 2,000 years of infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of the 70 Weeks for the determination of a definite prophetic chronology. ... "

John Wolvoord, "Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation", Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 217...​

You keep citing Walvoord, already addressed - The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism​

 

[Bobby Jo]

So, take for instance the start of your "490-years" which is promulgated upon a "decree from Cyrus" as though it were the "going forth of the word to establish and rebuild Jerusalem". But Young asserts:

... This phrase has reference to the issuance of the word, not from a Persian ruler but from God. Young goes on to point out that the expression the commandment, which he insists is better translated “a word” (Heb. Dābār; cf. 2Ch 30:5) is also found is Daniel 9:23 for a word from God.”[1]

[1] John Walvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 224​

In FACT this DECREE IS FROM GOD, and is IN SCRIPTURE if you were only willing to look! -- And we KNOW the SPECIFIC FUTURE YEAR in which GOD SENT THE DECREE FORTH, and of course it pre-dates 1948 because it takes time to build a nation-state which will be recognized by the world.
Bobby Jo

 

[ReChoired]

...

“New Bible Commentary: Revised.”
“This prophesy of the seventy sevens is one of the most difficult in the entire OT, and although the interpretations are almost legion, we shall confine ourselves to the discussion of three which may be regarded as of particular importance.”

Guthrie, D., & J.A. Motyer, New Bible Commentary: Revised, Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1970, p. 699 ...​

Even historically, we can go to the so called 'ECF' and see a general agreement of 'years':

200AD Hippolytus of Rome (70 weeks): "16. That transgressions, therefore, are blotted out, and that reconciliation is made for sins, is shown by this. But who are they who have reconciliation made for their sins, but they who believe on His name, and propitiate His countenance by good works? And that after the return of the people from Babylon there was a space of 434 years, until the time of the birth of Christ, may be easily understood." - Philip Schaff: ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

225AD Origen: "The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled" (Principles, 4:1:5). (On the Seventy Weeks of Daniel) - Origen ON THE PRINCIPLES (PERI ARCHON - DE PRINCIPIIS) - III : Full text, in English - 1

403AD Sulpcius Severus (On Daniel's Seventy Weeks): "But from the restoration of the temple to its destruction, which was completed by Titus under Vespasian, when Augustus was consul, there was a period of four hundred and eighty-three years. That was formerly predicted by Daniel, who announced that from the restoration of the temple to its overthrow there would elapse seventy and nine weeks. Now, from the date of the captivity of the Jews until the time of the restoration of the city, there were two hundred and sixty years." (p. 254, ch. 11, Sacred History) - Philip Schaff: NPNF-211. Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lerins, John Cassian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

420 AD Cyril of Alexandria: "Now three score and nine weeks of years contain four hundred and eighty-three years. He said, therefore, that after the building of Jerusalem, four hundred and eighty-three years having passed, and the rulers having failed, then cometh a certain king of another race, in whose time the Christ is to be born." (Cyril of Alexandria, 420 AD) - CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lecture 12 (Cyril of Jerusalem)​

Others - The Early Church Fathers and the Last Days of the Jewish Age

 

[Bobby Jo]

Even historically,

Two points:
There is no "Historical" fulfillment.

Secondly:
Take for instance the start of your "490-years" which is promulgated upon a "decree from Cyrus" as though it were the "going forth of the word to establish and rebuild Jerusalem". But Young asserts:

... This phrase has reference to the issuance of the word, not from a Persian ruler but from God. Young goes on to point out that the expression the commandment, which he insists is better translated “a word” (Heb. Dābār; cf. 2Ch 30:5) is also found is Daniel 9:23 for a word from God.”[1]

[1] John Walvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 224​

In FACT this DECREE IS FROM GOD, and is IN SCRIPTURE if you were only willing to look! -- And we KNOW the SPECIFIC FUTURE YEAR in which GOD SENT THE DECREE FORTH, and of course it pre-dates 1948 because it takes time to build a nation-state which will be recognized by the world.
Bobby Jo

 

[ReChoired]

So, take for instance the start of your "490-years" which is promulgated upon a "decree from Cyrus" as though it were the "going forth of the word to establish and rebuild Jerusalem". ...

In FACT this DECREE IS FROM GOD, and is IN SCRIPTURE if you were only willing to look! ...

You haven't read what I stated about this, obviously. Go back and read through please.

"the going forth of" "the commandment" is from God, through 3 men:

Dan 9:24 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.

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Ezr 6:14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.​

The Bible (God) told us in plain English. This was seen in finalization of Ezra 7, in the 7th Year of Artaxerxes I Longimanus/Machrocheir, 457 BC as already demonstrated from history and astronomically confirmed sources.

 

[ReChoired]

Two points:
There is no "Historical" fulfillment....

You just took what I said out of context. The statement about "historically", refers to over a period of time, from earliest to latter, that agreement existed about the 'years' on the whole, "Even historically, we can go to the so called 'ECF' and see a general agreement of 'years':"

 

[Bobby Jo]

... "the going forth of" "the commandment" is from God, through 3 men: ....

Nope. It's DIRECTLY FROM GOD HIMSELF. Are you familiar with the raising of "ancient doors" and ancient "gates"? It took some 24 years to call a people, and start the process toward a nation/state. It's IN SCRIPTURE -- FROM GOD, not from men.

Young is CORRECT, even though he couldn't explain how it's applied -- and that's Scholarship!
Bobby Jo

 

[Bobby Jo]

You just took what I said out of context. ...

I understood your context, but I don't care about your "commentators". I care about what Scripture ACTUALLY presents. And it not only presents the "sevens" as NOT 490-YEARS; but as an end-time Prophecy (Ref. 12:4 & 9).


Let me say, that I don't disagree that Nehemiah worked to reestablish Jerusalem from it's destruction. But that's NOT what Daniel 9 addresses, and neither these Verses nor History support that premise. As previously presented, the TEXT doesn't support, and there is no HISTORICAL FULFILLMENT for a 490 year interpretation, including the "Damascus Document" among others:

“...the Book of Daniel, where a period of seventy weeks of years, i.e. 490 years, is given as separating the epoch of Nebuchadnezzar from that of the Messiah. As it happens, if to this figure of 390 years [Damascus Document] is added, firstly twenty (during which the ancestors of the Community ‘groped’ for their way until the entry on the scene of the Teacher of Righteousness), then another forty (the time span between the death of the Teacher and the dawn of the messianic epoch), the total stretch of years arrived at is 450. And if to this total is added the duration of the Teacher’s ministry of, say, forty years - a customary round figure - the final result is the classic seventy times seven years.”


Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls In English, Penguin Putnam Inc., NY, 1997, p. 58​

What a mess! Wouldn't you like to see the TRUE End-Time-Fulfillment, as the ANGEL DEMANDS???

Dan. 12:4 But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”
9 He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end.​

Bobby Jo

 

[Keraz]

This thread is now way beyond any value for helping to understand the end times.

You did ask me, ReChoired, about Ellen Whites books.
I do have 'Patriarchs and Prophets' dated 1893 in my library. Also 'The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan', no date, but it is just a few years later.
I checked my annotations in the G.C., for where she, E.W., describes the Great Disappointment of 1844. Firstly she makes the unscriptural assumption that the 2300 evenings and mornings are years. E.W. says the 2300 'days - years' are part of the seventy weeks. page 351
Then E.W. goes on at length to make out that it was the Sanctuary in heaven that was cleansed in 1844. page 413+

All quite wrong and just leads to confusion about God's plans for the soon to commence end prophesied times events.