A book! I know which one too. "AntiChrist" put out by The Elijah Project I have read the same stuff in it....
The 70 Weeks of Daniel
- Thread starter samy
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Yes I did quote from that book
but I have taught this same thing for many years, it is what is written in scripturebut it is a great second wittness heres the link for anyone who wants to read ithttp://www.christianityboard.com/free-book...-rev-t6226.html
but I have taught this same thing for many years, it is what is written in scripturebut it is a great second wittness heres the link for anyone who wants to read ithttp://www.christianityboard.com/free-book...-rev-t6226.htmlThe first 7 weeks begin in 458 bc and end 49 years later, then are followed by the remaining years of the prophecy except for the interlude in the middle of the 70th week. samy
(samy;46471)
The first 7 weeks begin in 458 bc and end 49 years later, then are followed by the remaining years of the prophecy except for the interlude in the middle of the 70th week. samy
When do the 62 weeks begin and end?snt
The first 7 weeks begin in 458 bc and end 49 years later, then are followed by the remaining years of the prophecy except for the interlude in the middle of the 70th week. samy
When do the 62 weeks begin and end?snt
I wrote in my originall post, "A total of 483 years (7 sevens and 62 sevens) had to elapse before the appearance of Messiah the Prince. Starting from 458 B.C. and counting 483 years brings one to A.D. 26, the historically accepted year for the baptism of Jesus and beginning of His public ministry. (It is important to note when counting between B.C. and A.D. that there is no year "0" between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D.)The period of 483 years is broken into 49 years (7 sevens) and 434 years (62 sevens) probably because 49 years would elapse from the decree until Jerusalem was completely rebuilt. Then an additional 434 years would elapse before the arrival of Messiah the Prince." Thus the 62 years ends at 26 AD. samy
(samy;46523)
I wrote in my originall post, "A total of 483 years (7 sevens and 62 sevens) had to elapse before the appearance of Messiah the Prince. Starting from 458 B.C. and counting 483 years brings one to A.D. 26, the historically accepted year for the baptism of Jesus and beginning of His public ministry. (It is important to note when counting between B.C. and A.D. that there is no year "0" between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D.)The period of 483 years is broken into 49 years (7 sevens) and 434 years (62 sevens) probably because 49 years would elapse from the decree until Jerusalem was completely rebuilt. Then an additional 434 years would elapse before the arrival of Messiah the Prince." Thus the 62 years ends at 26 AD.samy
Three kings were identified in the restoration of Jerusalem and the fulfillment of the 7 weeks or 49 years."And the elder of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia." Ezra. 6:14Cyrus is identified as the first king responsible for the return of the exiles to Jerusalem and the completion of the Temple foundation.“Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, The LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.” 2Ch.36:22-23.Also, over a hundred years earlier the Prophet Isaiah foretold of Cyrus, concerning Jerusalem.“That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.”Isa.44:28How can these scriptures be so easily dismissed?snt
I wrote in my originall post, "A total of 483 years (7 sevens and 62 sevens) had to elapse before the appearance of Messiah the Prince. Starting from 458 B.C. and counting 483 years brings one to A.D. 26, the historically accepted year for the baptism of Jesus and beginning of His public ministry. (It is important to note when counting between B.C. and A.D. that there is no year "0" between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D.)The period of 483 years is broken into 49 years (7 sevens) and 434 years (62 sevens) probably because 49 years would elapse from the decree until Jerusalem was completely rebuilt. Then an additional 434 years would elapse before the arrival of Messiah the Prince." Thus the 62 years ends at 26 AD.samy
Three kings were identified in the restoration of Jerusalem and the fulfillment of the 7 weeks or 49 years."And the elder of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia." Ezra. 6:14Cyrus is identified as the first king responsible for the return of the exiles to Jerusalem and the completion of the Temple foundation.“Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, The LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.” 2Ch.36:22-23.Also, over a hundred years earlier the Prophet Isaiah foretold of Cyrus, concerning Jerusalem.“That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.”Isa.44:28How can these scriptures be so easily dismissed?snt
I have great respect for many of my friends who hold differing opinions regarding which decree starts the ckock. I wrote, "Gabriel tells Daniel when the prophetic clock is to begin running. However, conservative scholars are divided between at least three different decrees as the one meant by Gabriel. The decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra (Ezra 7:11-26, c. 458 B.C.) appears to be the most likely starting point of the 490-year period. This preference is based on the wording of this decree, Ezra's comments (Ezra 9:9), its early date and harmony with dates in the life of Christ. Also proposed are: (1) the decree of Cyrus, 538 B.C. (Ezra 1:2-4; 6:3-5); and (2) the decree of Artaxerxes, 445 B.C. (Neh. 2:5-8, 17-18)." There is compelling evidence for each. samy
(samy;46669)
I have great respect for many of my friends who hold differing opinions regarding which decree starts the ckock. I wrote, "Gabriel tells Daniel when the prophetic clock is to begin running. However, conservative scholars are divided between at least three different decrees as the one meant by Gabriel. The decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra (Ezra 7:11-26, c. 458 B.C.) appears to be the most likely starting point of the 490-year period. This preference is based on the wording of this decree, Ezra's comments (Ezra 9:9), its early date and harmony with dates in the life of Christ. Also proposed are: (1) the decree of Cyrus, 538 B.C. (Ezra 1:2-4; 6:3-5); and (2) the decree of Artaxerxes, 445 B.C. (Neh. 2:5-8, 17-18)." There is compelling evidence for each. samy
Artaxerxes reigned for only 32 years, 17 shy of the needed 49 years; a fact overlooked by those using 458 BC as their date of commencement.snt
I have great respect for many of my friends who hold differing opinions regarding which decree starts the ckock. I wrote, "Gabriel tells Daniel when the prophetic clock is to begin running. However, conservative scholars are divided between at least three different decrees as the one meant by Gabriel. The decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra (Ezra 7:11-26, c. 458 B.C.) appears to be the most likely starting point of the 490-year period. This preference is based on the wording of this decree, Ezra's comments (Ezra 9:9), its early date and harmony with dates in the life of Christ. Also proposed are: (1) the decree of Cyrus, 538 B.C. (Ezra 1:2-4; 6:3-5); and (2) the decree of Artaxerxes, 445 B.C. (Neh. 2:5-8, 17-18)." There is compelling evidence for each. samy
Artaxerxes reigned for only 32 years, 17 shy of the needed 49 years; a fact overlooked by those using 458 BC as their date of commencement.snt
Ezra went to Jerusalem in the 7th year of Artaxerxes I reign (458 BC). What is the problem with 49 years? This is Artaxerxes I Longimanus. samy
Ezra went to Jerusalem in the 7th year of Artaxerxes I reign (458 BC). What is the problem with 49 years? This is Artaxerxes I Longimanus. samy
(samy;46690)
Ezra went to Jerusalem in the 7th year of Artaxerxes I reign (458 BC). What is the problem with 49 years? This is Artaxerxes I Longimanus. samy
Artaxerxes 1 465-433 BC, reigned a total of 32 years...A far cry from 49 years or 7 weeks, which is what is required to fulfill the prophetic weeks.Darius II, who reigned after Artaxerxes, went without mention in scripture as to the issuing of a further decree or the fulfillment of the last.And, samy, that's just a minor problem...snt
Ezra went to Jerusalem in the 7th year of Artaxerxes I reign (458 BC). What is the problem with 49 years? This is Artaxerxes I Longimanus. samy
Artaxerxes 1 465-433 BC, reigned a total of 32 years...A far cry from 49 years or 7 weeks, which is what is required to fulfill the prophetic weeks.Darius II, who reigned after Artaxerxes, went without mention in scripture as to the issuing of a further decree or the fulfillment of the last.And, samy, that's just a minor problem...snt
There is nothing about the prophecy that requires the reign of Artaxerxes to be 49 years. The clock of the prophecy only begins to run at his decree. The 49 years is thought to be the period of time that it took to rebuild the temple. Compare this to the time it took to build Herod's temple John 2:20. samy
(samy;46735)
There is nothing about the prophecy that requires the reign of Artaxerxes to be 49 years. The clock of the prophecy only begins to run at his decree. The 49 years is thought to be the period of time that it took to rebuild the temple. Compare this to the time it took to build Herod's temple John 2:20. samy
samy, a thought is an assumption, which leads to theory.When one attempts to explain Daniel's 70 Weeks he must first thoroughly understand every facet of the subject.The Temple was completed under Darius, 515 BC. Ezra 6:15"And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king."Please, don't try and justify a date that confirms the fulfillment of a prophetic event, such as "the Messiah the Prince" by looking for a moment in time that helps to prove your conclusion or theory.Go back and reread Ezra, Nehemiah, and finish off with Zechariah..Take the time to really dig deep within the scriptures. snt
There is nothing about the prophecy that requires the reign of Artaxerxes to be 49 years. The clock of the prophecy only begins to run at his decree. The 49 years is thought to be the period of time that it took to rebuild the temple. Compare this to the time it took to build Herod's temple John 2:20. samy
samy, a thought is an assumption, which leads to theory.When one attempts to explain Daniel's 70 Weeks he must first thoroughly understand every facet of the subject.The Temple was completed under Darius, 515 BC. Ezra 6:15"And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king."Please, don't try and justify a date that confirms the fulfillment of a prophetic event, such as "the Messiah the Prince" by looking for a moment in time that helps to prove your conclusion or theory.Go back and reread Ezra, Nehemiah, and finish off with Zechariah..Take the time to really dig deep within the scriptures. snt
My Hebrew project in graduate school was to translate part of Zechariah. Don't be too sure of yourself. samy
(samy;46822)
My Hebrew project in graduate school was to translate part of Zechariah. Don't be too sure of yourself. samy
Interesting..What part of Zechariah, samy...BTW, Had the best scholars of our time been able to correctly figure out Daniel's 70 Weeks, the issue at hand would have been resolved long ago.Also, it is not one's education that reveals the truth of the Word, rather the Holy Spirit...I hope Ezra 6:15 was helpful in providing you with the much needed information in proofing the date of completion concerning the Temple.snt
My Hebrew project in graduate school was to translate part of Zechariah. Don't be too sure of yourself. samy
Interesting..What part of Zechariah, samy...BTW, Had the best scholars of our time been able to correctly figure out Daniel's 70 Weeks, the issue at hand would have been resolved long ago.Also, it is not one's education that reveals the truth of the Word, rather the Holy Spirit...I hope Ezra 6:15 was helpful in providing you with the much needed information in proofing the date of completion concerning the Temple.snt
When I offered you the observation made by others "it is thought" about the building of the temple, I was merely try to help you out of your obvioius confusion about some sort of parallel that must have existed between Artaxeaxes rule and the 49 years. There are several different proposals about the 49 years. None can really be decided for certain. I would not "pound the pulpit" on any of them. I was not unaware of Ezra 6:15. I have proposed a solution that solves many problems. It is a proposal with weak points--that I am willing to admit. But I consider it stronger than anything else I've seen. I love the truth, the Lord Jesus is the truth. And I trust that through patient, constructive, dialogue with his Spirit-filled, faithful, servants, the truth will emerge. samy
And concerning the education thing, I did not get my information in my piece on the 70 Weeks in a classroom, I got it on my knees. samy
Heres another view its the most creditable for anyone interested putting the date at 445 B.C.http://www.bible-reading.com/490yrs.html"the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing" (Daniel 9:26a). 33 AD.
(samy;46843)
When I offered you the observation made by others "it is thought" about the building of the temple, I was merely try to help you out of your obvioius confusion about some sort of parallel that must have existed between Artaxeaxes rule and the 49 years. There are several different proposals about the 49 years. None can really be decided for certain. I would not "pound the pulpit" on any of them. I was not unaware of Ezra 6:15. I have proposed a solution that solves many problems. It is a proposal with weak points--that I am willing to admit. But I consider it stronger than anything else I've seen. I love the truth, the Lord Jesus is the truth. And I trust that through patient, constructive, dialogue with his Spirit-filled, faithful, servants, the truth will emerge. samy
And concerning the education thing, I did not get my information in my piece on the 70 Weeks in a classroom, I got it on my knees. samy
Sounds as if I raffled your feathers, forgive me...Confused, not at all...Daniel's 70 weeks is a straightforward study of Ezra and Nehemiah.Though, it seems that the mathematics used to verify a date or event has proven to be a bit of a challenge for those trying to substantiate a theory.Most theories try to establish the commencement of the first 7 weeks by searching out a decree that will allow for a continuous passage of time, 483 years, in an effort to prove the prophetic fulfillment of "the Messiah the Prince"..These theories hit close to the event, but fail to withstand any scrutiny given by scripture.Let's look at one of the theories you seem to favor..Now, samy, this is a heartfelt attempt at presenting an example that demonstrates what has been stated.The decree of Artaxerxes in 458 BC, progressing 483 years to 26 AD, which you believe to be the date of Christ's baptism and start of his public ministry.If that were correct it would place the birth of Christ at 4 BC, which is the same year that Herod the Great died.It might seem possibility, until we read Matt. 2:16, which states that the three wise men saw the appearance of a star in the east announcing the birth of our king, two years prior to their arrival in Jerusalem and their inquiry made of Herod the Great; thus, determining the birth of Christ to be 6 BC.samy, every theory has a flaw, apart from the one that proves to be infallible...snt
When I offered you the observation made by others "it is thought" about the building of the temple, I was merely try to help you out of your obvioius confusion about some sort of parallel that must have existed between Artaxeaxes rule and the 49 years. There are several different proposals about the 49 years. None can really be decided for certain. I would not "pound the pulpit" on any of them. I was not unaware of Ezra 6:15. I have proposed a solution that solves many problems. It is a proposal with weak points--that I am willing to admit. But I consider it stronger than anything else I've seen. I love the truth, the Lord Jesus is the truth. And I trust that through patient, constructive, dialogue with his Spirit-filled, faithful, servants, the truth will emerge. samy
And concerning the education thing, I did not get my information in my piece on the 70 Weeks in a classroom, I got it on my knees. samy
Sounds as if I raffled your feathers, forgive me...Confused, not at all...Daniel's 70 weeks is a straightforward study of Ezra and Nehemiah.Though, it seems that the mathematics used to verify a date or event has proven to be a bit of a challenge for those trying to substantiate a theory.Most theories try to establish the commencement of the first 7 weeks by searching out a decree that will allow for a continuous passage of time, 483 years, in an effort to prove the prophetic fulfillment of "the Messiah the Prince"..These theories hit close to the event, but fail to withstand any scrutiny given by scripture.Let's look at one of the theories you seem to favor..Now, samy, this is a heartfelt attempt at presenting an example that demonstrates what has been stated.The decree of Artaxerxes in 458 BC, progressing 483 years to 26 AD, which you believe to be the date of Christ's baptism and start of his public ministry.If that were correct it would place the birth of Christ at 4 BC, which is the same year that Herod the Great died.It might seem possibility, until we read Matt. 2:16, which states that the three wise men saw the appearance of a star in the east announcing the birth of our king, two years prior to their arrival in Jerusalem and their inquiry made of Herod the Great; thus, determining the birth of Christ to be 6 BC.samy, every theory has a flaw, apart from the one that proves to be infallible...snt
Similar threads
