... so to make sure that people are aware, the proponents of the "classical" Dan. 9 interpretation KNOW THERE ARE SERIOUS PROBLEMS:
Regarding the "weeks":
“... Montgomery, for all of his scholarship and knowledge of the history of interpretation, ends up with no reasonable interpretation at all.”[1]
“... as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’”[2]
“...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keil and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.”[3]
[1] John Walvoord,
Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 217
[2] IBID, p. 217
[3] IBID, p. 218
Here's a 20 year “grope;” an additional 40 years after the Messiah’s death; and 40 year instead of 30 year Messianic ministry:
“...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
... a Scriptural refutation of a purported "Cyrus Decree" fulfillment:
“[Per Young] 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.”
John Walvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 224
... and denial that Jesus is the only one who can fulfill the "anointed one"/"messiah":
CEV Footnote
9.25 the Chosen Leader: Or “a chosen leader.” In Hebrew the word “chosen” means “to pour oil (on someone’s head).” In Old Testament times it was the custom to pour oil on a person’s head when that person was chosen to be a priest or a king.[1]
There are 39 such citations, for which the translators capitalize 2 without any authorization, and for example Leviticus provides what happens if a mâshiyach sins:
4:3 If the priest that is anointed H4899 do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.[2]
[1] Bible Gateway passage: Daniel 9 - Contemporary English Version
[2] H4899 - mashiyach - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (KJV)
... and regarding the "moat" citation:
Although history does not provide any evidence of moats, various theories abound justifying the literal text. However, none propose the most obvious solution, which recognizes the extensive network of irrigation canals which the Palestinians built and then abandoned along with their homes when Israel declared itself a State in 1948.
... and the list keeps going and going and going. But if people want to be "ill-considered", then we all choose!
Bobby Jo
