Daniels' Seventy Sevens

[RND]

[quote="Mellontes"Should you ever come across the following book and have the opportunity to read it, it will be well worth your while...

Who Is This Babylon? (337 pp, pb) - Don Preston $19.95
New Expanded Second Edition. Proves that Jerusalem is the harlot city "Babylon" mentioned in the book of Revelation. Explains the tight connection between Revelation, Matthew 24, and Paul's eschatology. Powerful exposition of the Apocalypse, especially on the "Jerusalem" identity of Babylon. Proves Revelation was written before and fulfilled by the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Best defense of the 40-year millennium theory I have ever seen. One of Preston's most powerful books ever.

It can be ordered at http://www.preterist.org/preteristbookstore.asp

Until you read this book you no doubt will still think that Rome is the one. One thng though, the Rome (Papal system) you speak of seems to be different than the one the inspired personnel wrote of (Roman Empire-4th kingdom-the oikumene of Luke 2:1)[/quote]

I wonder if Preston knows how Jerusalem changed times and laws?

[Mellontes]

[quote="Mellontes"Should you ever come across the following book and have the opportunity to read it, it will be well worth your while...

Who Is This Babylon? (337 pp, pb) - Don Preston $19.95
New Expanded Second Edition. Proves that Jerusalem is the harlot city "Babylon" mentioned in the book of Revelation. Explains the tight connection between Revelation, Matthew 24, and Paul's eschatology. Powerful exposition of the Apocalypse, especially on the "Jerusalem" identity of Babylon. Proves Revelation was written before and fulfilled by the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Best defense of the 40-year millennium theory I have ever seen. One of Preston's most powerful books ever.

It can be ordered at http://www.preterist.org/preteristbookstore.asp

Until you read this book you no doubt will still think that Rome is the one. One thng though, the Rome (Papal system) you speak of seems to be different than the one the inspired personnel wrote of (Roman Empire-4th kingdom-the oikumene of Luke 2:1)[/quote]

[I wonder if Preston knows how Jerusalem changed times and laws?

Why don't you ask him? Be polite and realize that he is a very busy man... How about you phrase your question in exactly the way you want it and I will send it to him and post the response if he has time to answer...Is that okay? I won't be posting another person's email address on a public board. Please remember that he is not privy to all the conversations on this board and will need exacting information...

[RND]

Why don't you ask him?

Well, I went to a site connected with his name but I wasn't too sure if I could reach him there and frankly I never really thought about it.

Be polite and realize that he is a very busy man...

I'm always polite! Always!

How about you phrase your question in exactly the way you want it and I will send it to him and post the response if he has time to answer...Is that okay? I won't be posting another person's email address on a public board. Please remember that he is not privy to all the conversations on this board and will need exacting information...

Thanks for the offer Mellontes, but I emailed him my question:

"Pastor Preston, Could you elaborate what you feel are the "times and laws" in Daniel 7:25 that Jerusalem has/had or will change? Thanks in advance for your answer."

Short and sweet and to the point, and done in a respectful manner!

[anochria]

Best defense of the 40-year millennium theory I have ever seen

Is there an already existent thread on the topic of a 40-year millenium theory on these forums? If not, let's make one. I would like to hear a good defense of it, because at present it's almost impossible for me to swallow.

[Mellontes]

Best defense of the 40-year millennium theory I have ever seen

Is there an already existent thread on the topic of a 40-year millenium theory on these forums? If not, let's make one. I would like to hear a good defense of it, because at present it's almost impossible for me to swallow.

Open wider...just kidding

That book is excellent! A person may believe Jerusalem and the Jews are the next best thing to sliced bread before reading, but after reading, OMG...

John Hagee would not like that book!

[thrombomodulin]

Cross reference to related post and question

[Singalphile]

My perspective:

Everyone, I think, has decided that a week isn't really a week. Then it might as well be 7 months, 7 years, a generation, or just a relatively-short-time. All the educated guesses (as they seem to me) about when the 70 weeks starts and ends and how many days should be in a year and how much time to put in between this or that 7 year span... has never made an impression on me, I'd have to say.

But obviously I don't know a whole lot about this topic. I scanned the pages of this thread.

[anochria]

First, on why Daniel cannot be referring to literal 7 day weeks:

This prophecy itself it doesn't make sense for this to be referring to literal 7 day weeks. For instance, "he will confirm a covenant with many for one seven". What kind of covenant would only last 7 days? Also, how could the second temple be built under the span of 70 literal weeks? In reality, it took 46 years to complete, but even by the fastest measures I don't see how it could have been built in less than a year and a half.

So, if it's not literal weeks, why years?

The reason almost every commentator is confident that the "weeks" are seven years is that the Jewish calendar revolved around periods of 7 years (kinda like decades to them) and around periods of 49 years (Jubilees). The reason for this seems to lie in the Genesis creation account, rooted in the 7 day week idea.

70 X 7 Is therefore a natural way in a Hebrew context of saying something like "it's going to take 70 decades for this all to come to pass" in our context.

Also, 490 years is exactly 10 Jubilees.

The Hebrews didn't have any similar fascination with periods of 7 months and generations are never spoken of as 7s*, but rather as 40 year periods.


Does what I'm saying help make sense why the passage ought to be interpreted as 70 x 7 years?


*Though Matthew liked to group genealogies by 7s, but that's a different matter....

[anochria]

One more thought for singalphile:

The best interpretation is generally the one that satisfies all potential problems in the simplest manner.
I think that's what I'm outlining. For instance, no gaps in the 70 7s, a workable chronology, etc... Surely you'd at least admit that some interpretations of this passage are demonstrably better than others, right?

[Singalphile]

Anochria asked: Does what I'm saying help make sense why the passage ought to be interpreted as 70 x 7 years?
- and -
Surely you'd at least admit that some interpretations of this passage are demonstrably better than others, right?

Yes and yes. Your last explanation here along with your first post of the thread are informative and make sense, generally speaking, and I do agree that some interpretations can be demonstrably better than others. I was too flippant to suggest that weeks might as well mean 7 years, months, generations, or short-periods-of-time or whatever. But no matter how I look at it in various translations, there seems to be quite a bit of ambiguity. That's all I really meant to say.

As I said, I don't know a whole lot about it. Fact is, I'm not particularly excited about that passage one way or the other, so I haven't really tried very hard to resolve every question.