Daniel's 70 7's: Futurist vs Preterist Perspectives

[Guest]

Sab:

You are right to be sceptical about Anderson's calculations.

1. He calculates in lunar years. However the jews were not using lunar years at the time of the Babylonian captivity and there is evidence that they never did , even from the time of Moses.

2 He calculates the number of days without knowing the day on which the decrees were issued.

3. No one can say for certain which year Christ was born , or which year he was crucified.

4 Even if we knew the year of the crucifiction , we wouldn't know the exact date of the Passover as this was not fixed mathmaticly but was determined by direct observation by the Temple preists and could have varied up to 33 days. (may even be affected by weather , i.e. the ripening of the barley)

Lets just say that they were rightly expecting the Messiah at this time , due to the prophecy in Daniel. All else is speculation and opinion and should be labled as such.

Thomas

I tend to go for a birthdate of 11 Sep. 4 BC , I also celebrate Christmas on 25 Dec. . which shows how highly I respect my own opinion. LOL

[Guest]

Agreed, Thomas. I use the 457/458 date as the best example when talking with skeptics because it's the easiest to understand/ most straightforward. It's actually kinda cool though that the calucations can work a couple of ways. And, like you said, no matter the details, they point very specifically to the right time period.

On a somewhat related note, although there have been attempts by Jewish and critical scholars to suggest completely different ways of calculating these numbers, here's an interesting quote that comes from the famous rabbi Maimonides (12th century AD) :

"Daniel has elucidated to us the knowledge of the end times. However, since they are secret, the wise [rabbis] have barred the calcuation of the days of Messiah's coming so that the untutored populace will not be led astray when they see that the End Times have already come but there is no sign of the Messiah"

(this reportedly comes from the Nov/Dec 1992 issue of Biblical Archaelogy Review, pg. 58)

The Babylonian Talmud reportedly states, in commentary on this passage in Daniel, "These times were over long ago"

There are other examples like this in ancient Jewish commentaries.

Clearly, the more ancient interpretations favor seeing this passage as pointing to the 1st Century.

[Guest]

featheredprop asked:

Also, you discussed briefly the question of "most holy one" or "most holy place." You shared your preference, but you didn't explain why you preferred it. Can you explain in greater detail to me? Did you study the Hebrew? What led you to prefer one over the other?

No, I'm not a student of Hebrew. I could go either way on this one, as they are both valid options. I just preferred "most holy one" because the Jesus, the ruler, is called "the anointed one" later in verse 26. I think it's simpler to see this passage talking about only one anointed entity rather than two.

[Guest]

Anochria, (aka, Joshua, right?) wrote:

The end here should not be seen as the “end of the world” (as it could not have been, following so closely after Jesus’ first coming) but the end of the Jewish sacrificial system.

I'm absolutely horrible at math.
But could "the end" be the time when the Jews would "...finish transgression, to put an end to sin" (Dan 9:24b, NIV) ?

In other words, "the end of the divinely-decreed-time of Jewish rebellion to sin/transgress." (We know that after Jesus arose & was enthroned...the Jews as a nation had an interim period to repent and believe...a time which ended for them as a nation in 70AD).
________________________________________________

Borrowed from the other 70 thread (with some amendments, mine, I wrote):

"I don't see "to make an end of sins" as a reference to Christ's atoning work (as many, if not most do). I see it as the divinely appointed [length of] time of the transgression; that this particular "time of sinning" would come to an end by God's decree.

"To finish the transgression," [and] "To make an end of sins," are two ways of describing one and the same thing (is how I'm seeing this).

The Jewish nation, as a whole, would transgress {sin} till the decreed period of time would be finished---during which God would, in the meantime---send His son, {calling all Israel to repentance in the Person of His son: Messiah's kingdom's arrival}.

Even though this time was decreed to have a certain fixed length; God, as always, was still calling the Jews to repentance in the meantime! "I've set a fixed time for you to repent and end your sinning, to put a finish to your transgressions! But I won't leave you (as a nation) alone. I will send your Messiah!"

Added in now: Up till 70AD the Jews as a nation were given time by God to repent and believe, thus ending their sinning/transgressions: THE END of this "period of grace for the nation" we might say, was 70AD. If this is correct, "the end" of the sinning/transgression didn't happen when Jesus came and was enthroned, though many Jews believed. Rather, this "grace period" was extended to 70AD: then it came to its "end".

Does my interpretation make much sense to any of y'all?
(I'm not sure how this would "fit" mathematically and/or chronologically with the adding up years from Daniel). But "the end" as the "time of grace God alloted to the nation to repent "ending"...What say YE'z?