What does 70 groups of 7 mean and why you think it means what it does: FOR PGA

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 79
Topic's author
#1
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
@PGA2.0

See how nice I am? Have at it. My initial question:

If somehow some scholar you respected, like you thought this person was the pinnacle of knowledge on the subject, came out tomorrow and said "You know that weird prophecy we are all over? Well, I hate to say, but the truth is, we've discovered some pretty damning evidence that it just was not that way, ever. It's totally wrong," would you then STOP believing in God?
#2
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
See how nice I am?
Thanks!


Have at it. My initial question:

If somehow some scholar you respected, like you thought this person was the pinnacle of knowledge on the subject, came out tomorrow and said "You know that weird prophecy we are all over? Well, I hate to say, but the truth is, we've discovered some pretty damning evidence that it just was not that way, ever. It's totally wrong," would you then STOP believing in God?

 Starting with the previous thread:

1. The Literal Approach Per Philip Mauro (then I will present the evidence for the Approximate time frame approach). I will try and establish both approaches as reasonable and logical.

Daniel 9:24 (NASB)
Seventy Weeks and the Messiah
24 “Seventy [a]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the 
most holy
 place.
 
Footnotes:[a] Daniel 9:24 Or units of seven, and so throughout the ch.


Daniel's people and city (Jerusalem) are given a time frame of seventy sevens or 490 years (70 X 7 = 490) to finish the six listed conditions - agreed from the text of Scripture? Yes or no?

***

"God's response to Daniel's prayer was in the form of a revelation brought to him by the angel Gabriel, who stated, as the first item of information, that the seventy years of captivity were to be followed by a period of seventy sevens (of years). The word here rendered "weeks" is literally "sevens"; so there is no doubt that the period designated in this prophecy is seventy sevens of years- 490 years."


Do you accept that "sevens" is a reasonable interpretation of Daniel 9:24 or do you want me to establish further proof that both Jews and Christians think along such lines? Yes or no?

How do you think the Jews of the first century thought about Daniel's prophecy? Do you think they were looking for a Messiah around this 1st-century period?

If you are in agreement I will continue, otherwise, let's discuss it further.

#3
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
How do you think the Jews of the first century thought about Daniel's prophecy? Do you think they were looking for a Messiah around this 1st-century period?
I accept a date between  c. 200 to 150 BC or Daniel, when the Jews were really sufffering under the Seleucids.  I think they were certainly hoping for a traditional messiah to restore the glory and independence of israel.

Topic's author
#4
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Daniel's people and city (Jerusalem) are given a time frame of seventy sevens or 490 years (70 X 7 = 490) to finish the six listed conditions - agreed from the text of Scripture? Yes or no?

No. Here's the scripture you quoted.

24 “Seventy [a]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the 
most holy
 place.
There's no mention of years in this version. And...this:

"God's response to Daniel's prayer was in the form of a revelation brought to him by the angel Gabriel, who stated, as the first item of information, that the seventy years of captivity were to be followed by a period of seventy sevens (of years). The word here rendered "weeks" is literally "sevens"; so there is no doubt that the period designated in this prophecy is seventy sevens of years- 490 years."
Is not from scripture and does not have any reason to add (of years) as far as I can see. Don't waste your time on me though with this stuff, even if this were 100% accurate (and didn't require man-made additions and subtractions, conversions and translations to make it just so), it proves little about if that god is the only god, if that god inspired this somehow...it's involving byond a third party's interpretation of a dream in a book of very questionable authorship, and that's only the beginning of its problems. 

What if I told you that someone successfully prophesied something that had literally NEVER happened before (there was no historical precedent, unlike Romans destroying temples in other cultures), essentially to the exact date that such an event would happen (closed ended on the time and eliminating any external retrofitting), that the entire world witnessed it and could verify the prophesy as having come to pass (is not contingent on any faith proposition), that math was not involved (so this example is not something that could have been derived through calculation as inevitable), there was written proof of the prophesy that literally anyone could (and can) go see, to this day, and there is absolutely no room or need for any interpretation? If I could show you that and you were convinced what I just described was true, would that mean the predictor was somehow inspired by one of the many gods who are reported to exist? Would it somehow change your view of this prophecy you love, seeing as my prophecy is far, far, far more accurate and impressive? Remember, this event that was predicted LITERALLY NEVER HAPPENED IN ALL OF HISTORY. Not once. 


#5
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
Daniel's people and city (Jerusalem) are given a time frame of seventy sevens or 490 years (70 X 7 = 490) to finish the six listed conditions - agreed from the text of Scripture? Yes or no?

No. Here's the scripture you quoted.
You forgot the footnote.


24 “Seventy [a]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the 
most holy
 place.
There's no mention of years in this version. And...this:
It is understood. 

The opening two words of this prophecy, Seventy weeks or Seventy sevens (Shavoeem Sheeveem) are understood by most biblical scholars to refer to a designation of a prophetic period of time measured by the number seven. (Also known as a heptad or septets) Almost all interpretations (both Jewish and Christian) agree that these periods of seven are equal to 70 sets of seven years (70 X 7) equaling a total of 490 prophetic years. A week in this prophecy is a week of years meaning each week is equal to seven years of actual time. Daniel was already thinking in terms of years back in Daniel 9:2...

***
Daniel 9:2 (NASB)
2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.

 

Israel's Captivity: Israel had influence on how long they would be held captive in Babylon. Their 70 years of captivity was in direct correlation with the 490 years of Sabbath Land Rests that were violated (Leviticus 26:34).
The amount of time here (490 prophetic years) is not connected to Israel's disobedience for not allowing the land to rest. That issue was being addressed with the 70 years of Israel's captivity which was about to come to an end when Daniel received this prophecy (Leviticus 26:34).
The connection is that Israel's captivity was a direct result of a past 490 year violation and that this prophecy would use the same amount of time (490 years) but would look forward to Israel's future destiny instead of looking back at her past.
This decree was given in part to provide a timetable of the coming of the Messiah (He needed to come before the Temple would be destroyed in 70 A.D.) and to offer Israel hope. That is why the Talmud teaches that all deadlines for the coming of Moshiach (Messiah) have come and gone- the thing depends solely on our returning to G-d. (Sanhedrin 97b)
There was more than one decree so it is important to have the right starting date in order to have the right ending date. This Decree is studied in more detail in Daniel 9:25.

***
Weeks Of Years:
Weeks of years was already an understood measurement of time to Israel. A similar measurement of time is found in Leviticus 25:8 in dealing with the year of Jubilee.
Count off seven sabbaths of years-- seven times seven years-- so that the seven sabbaths of years amount to a period of forty-nine years. Then have the trumpet sounded everywhere on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement sound the trumpet throughout your land. Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each one of you is to return to his family property and each to his own clan. (Leviticus 25:8-10)

Related Prophecy:
Israel was to allow the land to rest every 7th year. They did not. Over a period of 490 years the land of Israel was shorted 70 years of sabbath rests. This led to Israel being forced to leave the land for 70 years so that the land could obtain the sabbath rest that it was due. At the end of the 70 years is when Daniel was given the vision of his prophetic 490 years. Although both prophecies are related to a 490 year time interval - they are two different periods of prophetic time. (See Jeremiah 25:11 and 29:10)

Miscellaneous:
Jewish commentators Abarbanel and Malbim understand the angel's reference to seventy weeks as an additional interpretation of the seventy years of Jeremiah.(1)
In addition to the sin of desecrating sabbatical years, the Jews had committed other sins (Yoma 96 specifies idolatry, licentiousness, and bloodshed), throughout the period occupied by these sabbatical years (490). For this, 70 years of exile would not suffice, and the full period of 490 years was needed for atonement.(1)
The Expression "week of years" occurs in the Mishna (Sanh.v.1.)(2)


So for every year that Israel did not honour the Sabbath rest another year was added to their judgment. 

Here are the two most important pieces of information you need to glean from the above:
1. Over a period of 490 years, the land of Israel was shorted 70 years of sabbath rests. This led to Israel being forced to leave the land for 70 years so that the land could obtain the sabbath rest that it was due.

The 70-year penalty happened with the Babylonian captivity.

2. God was again going to compound the penalty seven times more as explained in Leviticus 26:18.
If also after these things you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.


#6
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8


"God's response to Daniel's prayer was in the form of a revelation brought to him by the angel Gabriel, who stated, as the first item of information, that the seventy years of captivity were to be followed by a period of seventy sevens (of years). The word here rendered "weeks" is literally "sevens"; so there is no doubt that the period designated in this prophecy is seventy sevens of years- 490 years."
Is not from scripture and does not have any reason to add (of years) as far as I can see. Don't waste your time on me though with this stuff, even if this were 100% accurate (and didn't require man-made additions and subtractions, conversions and translations to make it just so), it proves little about if that god is the only god, if that god inspired this somehow...it's involving byond a third party's interpretation of a dream in a book of very questionable authorship, and that's only the beginning of its problems.
Again, your bias is evident. You do not want to hear the explanation as to why prophecy is an indication of the Bible (which says thousands of times that God spoke/said) as reliable and accurate, and extremely detailed from cover to cover, unlike any other religious writing.

We are either here/exist because of God/gods or chance happenstance. Which is more reasonable? That is the vital question. Is your belief a reasonable belief or not? You apparently do not care. Nor do you want to engage. You, like every other atheist or unbeliever I have dialogued with, has his own agenda. You come on these forums (IMO) to tout your belief even though you can't make sense of it (the blind leading the blind with no purpose but to justify a belief that is ultimately senseless. 

What if I told you that someone successfully prophesied something that had literally NEVER happened before (there was no historical precedent, unlike Romans destroying temples in other cultures), essentially to the exact date that such an event would happen (closed ended on the time and eliminating any external retrofitting), that the entire world witnessed it and could verify the prophesy as having come to pass (is not contingent on any faith proposition), that math was not involved (so this example is not something that could have been derived through calculation as inevitable), there was written proof of the prophesy that literally anyone could (and can) go see, to this day, and there is absolutely no room or need for any interpretation? If I could show you that and you were convinced what I just described was true, would that mean the predictor was somehow inspired by one of the many gods who are reported to exist?
It would add reasons to the reasonableness of the claim of that god existing. Compile this with hundreds, even thousands of other prophecies plus the nature of the biblical account then it would be most reasonable to believe. Who do you know that can predict the future in such detail and with such accuracy? 



Would it somehow change your view of this prophecy you love, seeing as my prophecy is far, far, far more accurate and impressive? Remember, this event that was predicted LITERALLY NEVER HAPPENED IN ALL OF HISTORY. Not once. 


As I said, I can only give you a reasonable and logical proof/evidence. What you do with it is up to you. And I can juxtaposition the biblical account against the contradictions in you or any other account and show that only one can ultimately make sense of life's ultimate questions. 

If you don't want to hear the evidence, then don't ever tell me again that the Bible is not a reasonable and logical faith. What I claim is it is the only worldview that can make sense of why we exist. So, I will continue to claim your is an unreasonable faith, not mine. 

What you do continually is disingenuous. You challenge me to present why I think the Christian God has given evidence for His existence that is reasonable and logical to believe and when I start to do this you wriggle out of the discussion claiming before you hear the evidence that it will not stand. How reasonable is this? 
Topic's author
#7
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
You forgot the footnote.

The footnote isn't in the scripture. Otherwise it'd just be in the text. It is outside the scripture, and by that definition you are not using the bible anymore. It's no longer a biblical scripture, it's biblical plus something else that is not purported to be breathed by god himself. The bible features in other places the words "year", "week", "four" "hundred" "ninety", "Rome" and "Temple." If the prophecy used these words and not the interpretation ex facto of a story of someone else's dream about a statue with feet of clay, you might be able to call this a biblical prophesy. Of course, there'd be no way to tell if god was the reason it were true. AND you'd still have to square how this one part being right eliminates tons of other instances where it's objectively wrong. 

Again, your bias is evident. You do not want to hear the explanation as to why prophecy is an indication of the Bible (which says thousands of times that God spoke/said) as reliable and accurate, and extremely detailed from cover to cover, unlike any other religious writing.
I want to hear evidence. Not the repackaged claim. "The bible is true," you say, "and therefore this is the only god who's ever existed." Okay, say I, what evidence do you have of that? You say "The bible says it's true, and this one thing in it happened if you squint really hard, that means all other things in it happened." I say "No, that's what the bible SAYS. I want to know how I can tell if it's TRUE." I've even bolded the part of your argument where you literally say that: the bible says god said this. That is not evidence that the bible is true, THAT IS THE CLAIM. I'm totally willing to talk about beliefs or whatever in another thread. This thread is about prophecy. Start a different topic. 

What if I told you that someone successfully prophesied something that had literally NEVER happened before (there was no historical precedent, unlike Romans destroying temples in other cultures), essentially to the exact date that such an event would happen (closed ended on the time and eliminating any external retrofitting), that the entire world witnessed it and could verify the prophesy as having come to pass (is not contingent on any faith proposition), that math was not involved (so this example is not something that could have been derived through calculation as inevitable), there was written proof of the prophesy that literally anyone could (and can) go see, to this day, and there is absolutely no room or need for any interpretation? If I could show you that and you were convinced what I just described was true, would that mean the predictor was somehow inspired by one of the many gods who are reported to exist?
It would add reasons to the reasonableness of the claim of that god existing. Compile this with hundreds, even thousands of other prophecies plus the nature of the biblical account then it would be most reasonable to believe. Who do you know that can predict the future in such detail and with such accuracy? 
So if I could show you something that undeniably prophetic and the author said Xenu was the one who told him the details, would that mean Xenu was likely to be real in your mind? Would it make any dent in your belief? If not, then what's the point of prophesy as a tool to prop up your belief system? I literally know someone who did exactly what I described, and unlike you, I can provide evidence. I don't want to bother if you're just going to say "That was really Jesus in disguise." 

What you do continually is disingenuous. You challenge me to present why I think the Christian God has given evidence for His existence that is reasonable and logical to believe and when I start to do this you wriggle out of the discussion claiming before you hear the evidence that it will not stand. How reasonable is this
I say provide evidence that the biblical stories are true. You have only replied with long versions of "because the bible says it's true." THat's the claim, it isn't evidence. I'm more than willing to hear evidence that does not point at the claim. Your god's existence shouldn't be contingent on a book being true. It's the other way around: your book being true has to be contingent on the existence of the god within it, as far as I can tell. As far as "making sense" of the "big questions," you're not doing that either. Your answer to all of these questions is "Well, god did it this way, it must make sense even if I can't tell exactly how, or impart exactly how to others in such a way that they concur, so therefore it makes sense." It only pushed the question back one more step. Watch, I'll demonstrate: please advise why your existence makes sense. 
#8
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,672
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I accept a date between  c. 200 to 150 BC or Daniel, 

There you go again. One day you insist we know that you are an complete and utter , out and out  atheist, then next you're telling us all what you accept about a biblical character that you don't even believe in. FFS make your mind up!

You are always doing this. telling us what someone in the bible "means" we a certain verse is quoted yet vehemently state at times, that your an atheist and don't believe a word of these scriptures. 
#9
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
The Book of Daniel purports itself to have been written by a Jew living in 6th century BC Persia, however I believe it was written much later, between 200 and 150 BC.   I'm sorry I didn't make myself clearer. 


#10
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,672
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
The Book of Daniel purports itself to have been written by a Jew living in 6th century BC Persia

I accept a date between  c. 200 to 150 BC or Daniel, 

And you accept this, why?
#11
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
The 'prophecies' in daniel are accurate upto about 200bc, which is understandable if they aren't genuine prophecies but forgeries wriiten after the events.   The accuracy stops about 150 bc - there is no mention if the maccabbean revolts for instance.

All that is very conventional - I'd say most scholars who aren't literalists say more or less the same thing; it's the line taken by Wikipedia for instance. 

IMO Daniel was written to bolster Jewish nationalism during a period when they were heavily oppressed by the Seleucids who seriously threatened the continuation of Jewish cultural identity - the Hebrew language was losing out to Greek, for instance.   Daniel purported to say this dip in Jewish fortunes was long foretold, so the imminent restoration of Israels greatness it also foretold would be believed.
#12
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,672
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
The 'prophecies' in daniel are accurate upto about 200bc, which is understandable if they aren't genuine prophecies but forgeries wriiten after the events.

So here once again and as per usual your sitting on the fence. Are they genuine or forgeries? Although you do not believe the scriptures.

IMO Daniel was written to bolster Jewish nationalism during a period when they were heavily oppressed by the Seleucids

So they are forgeries then?

Daniel purported to say this dip in Jewish fortunes was long foretold, so the imminent restoration of Israels greatness it also foretold would be believed. 
But you cannot say if or not these are forgeries, can you? But here again you are again, telling us what a biblical character has said or purported to have said, when you do not believe in these ancient scriptures and are and out and out atheist.
#13
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
I don't think anybody bar you would be in any doubt where I stand.
 
I don't do frothing-at-the-mouth polemic - I leave that to WisdomOfAges!


#14
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,672
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
 don't think anybody bar you would be in any doubt where I stand.

Ok, so make your mind up. Are these particular scriptures that you have highlighted up, forgeries or not. 
  
I don't do frothing-at-the-mouth polemic - I leave that to WisdomOfAges!

Neither do I., i am just wanting you to explain your hypocrisy of denying these scriptures to be true in one instance, then quoting them as if they are while at the same time casting doubt on their authenticity. 

When you are called on certain statements you make , you simply switch to part believing and or part disbelieving although you have on many occasions told us of your stance as an full blown  atheist.

Topic's author
#15
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
I am pretty sure its clear he thinks they're forgeries and in no way relating 'truth'. He's saying they're forged to incorporate true events in order to appear prophetic and gave a fairly logical reason for thinking that way (accuracy rate drops dramatically). I don't know, it seems pretty clear to me. You know forgery and 'true' are not in the same category, right? "Forgery" is relative to "authentic." 


#16
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,672
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
I am pretty sure its clear he thinks they're forgeries.

He can speak for himself. I am not interested in how "sure" YOU think HE is.
Topic's author
#17
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Stephen
You can always use the private message feature if it's only one person's opinion you're interested in. Email him. You're posting out here in the forum, so I'll comment where I please, thanks. 
#18
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,672
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
You can always use the private message feature if it's only one person's opinion you're interested in. Email him. You're posting out here in the forum, so I'll comment where I please, thanks. 

I didn't say you couldn't post A COMMENT ON THIS THREAD, NOW DID I, that is a  STUPID thing to even suggest? And I didn't say that you couldn't speak  on his behalf when he appears to be on the back foot and has  painted himself into a corner; something he does often or hasn't made himself clear - which is usually an excuse he uses when  it is pointed out to him how silly his replies are and his own statements are when broken down, examined, scrutinised and challenged.  And yes, it is an open forum (by all accounts). BUT in case you misunderstood what I have wrote, what I said was ; THAT he - Prosser - can speak for himself and that I WASN'T INTERESTED IN how "SURE" YOU think HE is.


#19
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
How do you think the Jews of the first century thought about Daniel's prophecy? Do you think they were looking for a Messiah around this 1st-century period?
I accept a date between  c. 200 to 150 BC or Daniel, when the Jews were really sufffering under the Seleucids.  I think they were certainly hoping for a traditional messiah to restore the glory and independence of israel.

I think you go against the wealth of evidence for an earlier date, which we have discussed before. 

Even so then, how do you reconcile the myriad of prophecies that all focus on AD 70, the destruction of the whole Jewish economy, and the coming of the Messiah, the resurrection and judgment? It all focuses in on the 1st-century. Remember, Daniel was writing to his people, to an OT people under the OT Mosaic Law.  
#20
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
If we disagree on when Daniel was written doubt we'll agree on anything else about it!

I've been looking into it,and there is no shortage of interpretations of Daniel's prophecy even amongst the faithful.  it's not easy to put myself in the position of a 1stC BC Jew so I can't be sure what it's intended audience would make of it.  I doubt many ordinary Jews read it for themselves, not only because of illiteracy but the lack of copies - no printing in those days!  How it was presnted to them would matter alot, but we can't know anything about it.

I imagine most ordinary Jews of the time accepted that a man could predict events 500 or more years in his future.   I don't!  Nor do I accept your interpretation of the significance of 70 AD.   Theologially, it is a visible sign of the transition from the old covenant to the new, essentially asymbol of God breaking with the Jews and transferring his patronage to the gentile world.

I don't dispute the relevant events of AD70 happened - but I think Preterism forces its interpretation of Daniel, not the other way round.
         



#21
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
Daniel's people and city (Jerusalem) are given a time frame of seventy sevens or 490 years (70 X 7 = 490) to finish the six listed conditions - agreed from the text of Scripture? Yes or no?

No. Here's the scripture you quoted.

24 “Seventy [a]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the 
most holy
 place.
There's no mention of years in this version. And...this:
Again, you don't understand the meaning of the word. You are ignorant of the meaning. 

Strong's Concordance
shabua: a period of seven (days, years), heptad, week
Original Word: שְׁבוּעַ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: shabua
Phonetic Spelling: (shaw-boo'-ah)
Definition: a period of seven (days, years), heptad, week

NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from sheba
Definition
a period of seven (days, years), heptad, week
NASB Translation
seven (1), week (4), Weeks (5), weeks (14).

Here is a Jewish understanding, which is no friend of the Christian view:

Orthodox Judaism agrees little with this pre-Millennium Christian view concerning the Daniel seventy-week prophecy, but there are some things they both agree on. Both views hold that Daniel was a Jewish prophet to his people the Jews, whereby they (the Jews) would play a major role in the fulfillment of this prophecy. Also, within Daniel's prophecy, each day of the seventy weeks are counted for a year based upon the Hebrew scriptures Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6...

The 70 week period is a continued time of judgment towards Israel for her sins which didn't include a sin of "rejecting the messiah" but rather for forsaking the Law of Moses (verses 11-13)...

To look further into the 70 week judgment period toward Israel, notice the number of years that the full 70 weeks amount up to: 490 years. That number might not seem significant unless you take into account the 7 times rule promised in the Torah of Moses that Daniel had just acknowledge they had broken. "And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins." - Leviticus 26:18
God had already hit Israel with a 70 years period of judgment as Jeremiah prophesied concerning Babylon (Jeremiah. 29:10). But because Israel did not hearken unto their God, He did as He promised in Leviticus 26:18, and issued a period of judgment of "seven times more" the seventy years prophesied by Jeremiah (70 x 7 = 490 years). So when Christians claim that the second temple was destroyed because the Jews rejected Jesus, the biblical fact that the second temple was destroyed because the Jews rejected Moses' law (that reached its climax and the end of the 70 weeks) over four hundred years before Jesus, can be pointed out to answer that claim.

A very good summary of the Jewish interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 can be found online in 'A critical and exegetical commentary on the book of Daniel' pages 396-398: https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic22montuoft. Among the commentators mentioned are Ibn Ezra, Rashi, and Abarbanel. In a nutshell, the seventy weeks are viewed as 490 years and terminate with the destruction of Jerusalem in the last seven years of that period.

The opening two words of this prophecy, Seventy weeks or Seventy sevens (Shavoeem Sheeveem) are understood by most biblical scholars to refer to a designation of a prophetic period of time measured by the number seven. (Also known as a heptad or septets) Almost all interpretations (both Jewish and Christian) agree that these periods of seven are equal to 70 sets of seven years (70 X 7) equaling a total of 490 prophetic years. A week in this prophecy is a week of years meaning each week is equal to seven years of actual time. Daniel was already thinking in terms of years back in Daniel 9:2.


#22
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x


"God's response to Daniel's prayer was in the form of a revelation brought to him by the angel Gabriel, who stated, as the first item of information, that the seventy years of captivity were to be followed by a period of seventy sevens (of years). The word here rendered "weeks" is literally "sevens"; so there is no doubt that the period designated in this prophecy is seventy sevens of years- 490 years."
Is not from scripture and does not have any reason to add (of years) as far as I can see. Don't waste your time on me though with this stuff, even if this were 100% accurate (and didn't require man-made additions and subtractions, conversions and translations to make it just so), it proves little about if that god is the only god, if that god inspired this somehow...it's involving byond a third party's interpretation of a dream in a book of very questionable authorship, and that's only the beginning of its problems.
So, as shown in my previous post, you do not have the foggiest idea of what the seventy sevens mean (i.e., 490 years).

 

What if I told you that someone successfully prophesied something that had literally NEVER happened before (there was no historical precedent, unlike Romans destroying temples in other cultures), essentially to the exact date that such an event would happen (closed ended on the time and eliminating any external retrofitting), that the entire world witnessed it and could verify the prophesy as having come to pass (is not contingent on any faith proposition), that math was not involved (so this example is not something that could have been derived through calculation as inevitable), there was written proof of the prophesy that literally anyone could (and can) go see, to this day, and there is absolutely no room or need for any interpretation? If I could show you that and you were convinced what I just described was true, would that mean the predictor was somehow inspired by one of the many gods who are reported to exist? Would it somehow change your view of this prophecy you love, seeing as my prophecy is far, far, far more accurate and impressive? Remember, this event that was predicted LITERALLY NEVER HAPPENED IN ALL OF HISTORY. Not once. 

Again, as mentioned in the citation from Jewish sites, the prophecies concern the Mosaic covenant people. That people no longer exist in covenant with God after AD 70 because they cannot meet the agreement they made with God. Israel was seldom obedient to the covenant they made with God (Deuteronomy 28) and the consequences were felt in AD 70 in fulfillment of the conditions of Daniel 9:24. 

The Daniel 9:24-27  prophecy, along with the Daniel ch 2, 7, 9, 12 are very specific prophecies and detail specific times and events. Show me other ancient prophecies that demonstrate this. 

Remember, I said that the biblical faith is a reasonable and logical faith, something I do not believe can be demonstrated with other faiths.  



#23
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

If we disagree on when Daniel was written doubt we'll agree on anything else about it!
That is fine. We disagree. The question is whose view is more reasonable and consistent with what is known. Did you notice how ludofl3x avoids the discussion? He doesn't want to see the evidence nor its logical consistency. He never answered my questions in my first post. This is the tactic I get every time I go into any attempt in proving my position - the opposition feigns irrelevancy without the evidence even being presented. So he sets up a thread and then puts up all kinds of roadblocks to prevent me from giving evidence. 


I've been looking into it,and there is no shortage of interpretations of Daniel's prophecy even amongst the faithful.
Granted, yet how consistent to the prophecy are they? I believe that only the two scenarios I gave in the challenge are consistent. I will go along with disproving the others as logically inconsistent. The two I hold to as reasonable and logical (which no one seems interested in hearing because they keep shutting down the dialogue) are taken either from a literal Philip Mauro explanation or from rounding off of the seventy sevens, as can be demonstrated as happening from many other Scriptures. Either way, I believe they are both reasonable and logical explanations, whereas I have not found another view as being able to demonstrate this (including the Orthodox Jewish views I have looked at).  
 
it's not easy to put myself in the position of a 1stC BC Jew so I can't be sure what it's intended audience would make of it.  I doubt many ordinary Jews read it for themselves, not only because of illiteracy but the lack of copies - no printing in those days!  How it was presnted to them would matter alot, but we can't know anything about it.
1. What is your evidence for this illiteracy theory? 
2. Many, possibly most, Jews in the 1st-century would know their Scriptures. They would be versed in them. Here comes a Man, claiming to be sent from God, accepting the notion by those closest to Him that He was their Messiah, telling them of judgment within their generation. 
3. This Messianic figure is cut off or killed, according to their own Scripture, and there are many reports that He has risen from the dead and many Jews come to faith in Him after His resurrection under intense persecution.
4. This teaching of the risen Christ changed the course of history.  


[1] I imagine most ordinary Jews of the time accepted that a man could predict events 500 or more years in his future.   I don't!  [2] Nor do I accept your interpretation of the significance of 70 AD.  [3] Theologially, it is a visible sign of the transition from the old covenant to the new, essentially a symbol of God breaking with the Jews and transferring his patronage to the gentile world.
[1] No, you don't because, IMO, you are a skeptic who makes excuses to not believe. Why would you believe in Someone you don't want to believe in? 

[2] Whether you accept the significance of AD 70 or not, the whole system of worship, what their whole economy and faith rested upon was destroyed. After AD 70 they could no longer worship God as they had agreed to in their Mosaic Covenant. I find this is indisputable, but if you wish I can demonstrate that they can no longer meet the Mosaic covenant regulations after AD 70. The priesthood is gone, the genealogical records that trace the lineage of the priesthood and Messiah are destroyed, the temple is destroyed, the animal sacrifices cannot be performed as required for the atonement of sin and a right relationship with God, the feast days can no longer be honored in the manner required, and the prophesied Messiah who was to come to these covenant people is no longer possible since the covenant is destroyed. 

[3] AD 70 is a completion of the transition of the old to the new. Every prophecy of the OT that I am familiar with, IMO, can be demonstrated to be fulfilled reasonably. I don't see how you can understand some of these prophecies in the application after AD 70 because they deal with an OT people, their Messiah, and judgment or curses (per Deuteronomy 28:15 onwards). 


I don't dispute the relevant events of AD70 happened
Thanks for that!


- but I think Preterism forces its interpretation of Daniel, not the other way round.


Show me how it forces its interpretation rather than bringing it to light. You acknowledge Jerusalem was destroyed and this was prophesied before AD70 since you acknowledge Daniel was written around 150 BCE.

1. Show me, from the OT where a coming judgment is not prophesied.
2. Show me where countless OT prophets and teachers (their writings) do not warn these Old Covenant warnings of impending judgment and a coming Messiah that does not fit after AD 70.
3. Show me how the Mosaic Law can be met after AD 70. 
4. Show me how the resurrection and judgment do not fit the AD 70 deadline, per Scripture. 
5. Show me how the Messiah does not apply to the Mosaic Covenant people. 

Show me how any of this is forced from Scripture. 






#24
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

The Book of Daniel purports itself to have been written by a Jew living in 6th century BC Persia, however I believe it was written much later, between 200 and 150 BC.   I'm sorry I didn't make myself clearer.  
  Please list each one of your pieces of evidence or claims that we can examine them as to their reasonableness. 
#25
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
That people no longer exist in covenant with God after AD 70 because they cannot meet the agreement they made with God.
By  'that people' you mean 'Jews'.
 
"Jews no longer exist in covenant with God after AD 70 because they cannot meet the agreement they made with God." 

One notes that this suggests god did not extend his covenant to include the gentiles but transferred his patronage to the gentiles, casting the jews aside.

To a secular cynic like me it appears that preterism/replacement theology arose sometime in the 16th century as a theological justification of anti-semitism.





 
#26
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

The 'prophecies' in daniel are accurate upto about 200bc, which is understandable if they aren't genuine prophecies but forgeries wriiten after the events.   The accuracy stops about 150 bc - there is no mention if the maccabbean revolts for instance.
If this is a copy that is traced back to 150 BCE (per the Dead Sea Scrolls) it is reasonable to believe the original dated way before this for a number of reasons, one of which is the transmission from the original. It takes time. 

Another factor that gives reason to believe it is older is the language that is used in some places of Daniel related more to the 6th-century BCE. 
The following site gives seven pieces of evidence for an earlier date in the 6th-century.

It raises the question:

Evidence No. 2: Another textual evidence that Daniel was written centuries before 165 BCE are the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls (written from 150 BCE to 50 CE). Scholarly comparison of the unique textual and linguistic styles support that Daniel was written centuries before the Dead Sea Scrolls. Dating Daniel to 165 BCE is not credible.
Naturalist's views for dating the book of Daniel are based on false assumptions about prophecy. Since we can verify Daniel's prophetic ideas came true, then Daniel's words appear to come from outside time-space. The date for writing the book of Daniel must be pushed back to match the text and linguistic style of the 5th century BCE.

***

"the Jewish historian Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.5 (c.93-94 A.D.) records that when Alexander the Great approached Jerusalem (c.333 B.C.), the High Priest Jaddua met him and showed Alexander part of the book of Daniel where the Greeks would overcome the Persians. Alexander apparently was impressed and left the Jews alone. 

Origen (225-254 A.D.) says that when Alexander of Macedon came to Jerusalem, the Jewish high priest, clothed in his sacred robe met him. Alexander bowed before him, saying that he had seen someone with the same robe in his dream, announcing that he was to be the subjugator of all of Asia. Origen Against Celsus book 4 ch.50 p.565"

***
Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.5
"And when the Book of Daniel was showed him [i.e., Alexander] (23) wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended. And as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present; but the next day he called them to him, and bid them ask what favors they pleased of him; whereupon the high priest desired that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers, and might pay no tribute on the seventh year. He granted all they desired. And when they entreared him that he would permit the Jews in Babylon and Media to enjoy their own laws also, he willingly promised to do hereafter what they desired. And when he said to the multitude, that if any of them would enlist themselves in his army, on this condition, that they should continue under the laws of their forefathers, and live according to them, he was willing to take them with him, many were ready to accompany him in his wars."


All that is very conventional - I'd say most scholars who aren't literalists say more or less the same thing; it's the line taken by Wikipedia for instance.
I would question their motive in doing so. I say this because I have looked at the rise of Higher Criticism and the ideology behind it which I have documented briefly in other threads. Most liberal scholars have this ideology and framework in mind (i.e., no God) when they examine Scripture because their agenda determines how they will look at Scripture.   

IMO Daniel was written to bolster Jewish nationalism during a period when they were heavily oppressed by the Seleucids who seriously threatened the continuation of Jewish cultural identity - the Hebrew language was losing out to Greek, for instance.   Daniel purported to say this dip in Jewish fortunes was long foretold, so the imminent restoration of Israels greatness it also foretold would be believed. 



#27
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
That people no longer exist in covenant with God after AD 70 because they cannot meet the agreement they made with God.
By  'that people' you mean 'Jews'.
I make the distinction between OT Jews and Jews today. Do you understand the difference?

Jews today are Rabinnical for they cannot follow the Mosaic Law as they agreed to in that covenant, with all its regulations and stipulations.

Exodus 24:3 (NASB)
3 Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!”...7 Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!”


Show me where the Jews today are obedient to that covenant in following all its mandates???
 
"Jews no longer exist in covenant with God after AD 70 because they cannot meet the agreement they made with God."  

One notes that this suggests god did not extend his covenant to include the gentiles but transferred his patronage to the gentiles, casting the jews aside. 
No, that is not what Scripture teaches. Those who believe in Jesus, Jew or Gentile, form part of the New Covenant. There is now no distinction. The covenant is open to all. The point is that the Mosaic Covenant Jews no longer exist in the covenant. That covenant was made null and void in AD 70 (some argue in AD 30 with the crucifixion). God judged them and their disobedience to that covenant like He promised in Deuteronomy 28:15, and following, and continued to warn them of the curses if they did not repent throughout the OT. 


To a secular cynic like me it appears that preterism/replacement theology arose sometime in the 16th century as a theological justification of anti-semitist.

True preterism is not replacement theology but I contend a rightful interpretation of both the OT and the NT. The OT promised God would make a new covenant with the House of Israel and it would include the Gentiles.  

#28
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
You forgot the footnote.

The footnote isn't in the scripture. Otherwise it'd just be in the text. It is outside the scripture, and by that definition you are not using the bible anymore.
The footnote helps explain something about the Scripture. 



It's no longer a biblical scripture, it's biblical plus something else that is not purported to be breathed by god himself. The bible features in other places the words "year", "week", "four" "hundred" "ninety", "Rome" and "Temple." If the prophecy used these words and not the interpretation ex facto of a story of someone else's dream about a statue with feet of clay, you might be able to call this a biblical prophesy. Of course, there'd be no way to tell if god was the reason it were true. AND you'd still have to square how this one part being right eliminates tons of other instances where it's objectively wrong. 
The underlined text explained in my previous post.


Again, your bias is evident. You do not want to hear the explanation as to why prophecy is an indication of the Bible (which says thousands of times that God spoke/said) as reliable and accurate, and extremely detailed from cover to cover, unlike any other religious writing.
I want to hear evidence. Not the repackaged claim. "The bible is true," you say, "and therefore this is the only god who's ever existed." Okay, say I, what evidence do you have of that? You say "The bible says it's true, and this one thing in it happened if you squint really hard, that means all other things in it happened."
I do not believe you want to hear the evidence. You keep denying me doing this. I have given you a reasonable and logical reply but I constantly see you shutting down the dialogue, as I will underline below. 

I say "No, that's what the bible SAYS. I want to know how I can tell if it's TRUE." I've even bolded the part of your argument where you literally say that: the bible says god said this. That is not evidence that the bible is true, THAT IS THE CLAIM. I'm totally willing to talk about beliefs or whatever in another thread. This thread is about prophecy. Start a different topic.
How can I explain the Bible without reference to it? Prophecy provides a biblical claim and the historical evidence verifies the claim. 

 

What if I told you that someone successfully prophesied something that had literally NEVER happened before (there was no historical precedent, unlike Romans destroying temples in other cultures), essentially to the exact date that such an event would happen (closed ended on the time and eliminating any external retrofitting), that the entire world witnessed it and could verify the prophesy as having come to pass (is not contingent on any faith proposition), that math was not involved (so this example is not something that could have been derived through calculation as inevitable), there was written proof of the prophesy that literally anyone could (and can) go see, to this day, and there is absolutely no room or need for any interpretation? If I could show you that and you were convinced what I just described was true, would that mean the predictor was somehow inspired by one of the many gods who are reported to exist?
It would add reasons to the reasonableness of the claim of that god existing. Compile this with hundreds, even thousands of other prophecies plus the nature of the biblical account then it would be most reasonable to believe. Who do you know that can predict the future in such detail and with such accuracy? 
So if I could show you something that undeniably prophetic and the author said Xenu was the one who told him the details, would that mean Xenu was likely to be real in your mind? Would it make any dent in your belief? If not, then what's the point of prophesy as a tool to prop up your belief system? I literally know someone who did exactly what I described, and unlike you, I can provide evidence. I don't want to bother if you're just going to say "That was really Jesus in disguise." 

What you do continually is disingenuous. You challenge me to present why I think the Christian God has given evidence for His existence that is reasonable and logical to believe and when I start to do this you wriggle out of the discussion claiming before you hear the evidence that it will not stand. How reasonable is this
I say provide evidence that the biblical stories are true. You have only replied with long versions of "because the bible says it's true." THat's the claim, it isn't evidence. I'm more than willing to hear evidence that does not point at the claim.
What do you consider evidence? I have provided a standard definition and you deny that it is evidence. 

You keep blocking me from presenting the reasonableness and logic of the evidence by shutting it down. For your purposes, IF God has revealed Himself to humanity by people inspired to write down this revelation (which Scripture reveals) THEN the Scriptures should provide evidence that confirms His word and in occasions like origins give reasonable and logical ideas of why we are here that can make sense of the universe and us existing. 

No matter what worldview you choose, how does it make sense of the universe and our existence? I presume you are an atheist. I do not believe your worldview is capable of making sense of the "why." I can demonstrate this by getting into the nuts and bolts of your worldview once you reveal it because it would have to believe things that are not logical or reasonable to believe.
 

#29
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x

Your god's existence shouldn't be contingent on a book being true.
If that book says it is His word, His revelation, then the historical evidence shown should back up biblical claims, where these claims are verifiable.

His existence is not contingent on the book, but our understanding of Him is to a large degree. A personal revelation of Him as He works in human history is verification of who He is and what He has done. The Bible explains this is the way God has chosen to reveal Himself to those (us) who did not have a personal relationship with Him during OT times when He directly interceded with His people and led them out of Egypt to the Promised Land, then He demonstrated Himself to them while in the Promised Land. Other than such a revelation we can't know God personally. He reveals the way to a personal relationship is through His Son and through a correct understanding of His Son and what He has done. It is a blueprint for that relationship. It is a blueprint to understand how God has interacted in human history in the past and why now the Son is the key to such a relationship. The Son has accomplished all we need for that relationship is His atonement for sin. Thus, God does not have to continually demonstrate Himself to humanity by outward signs and wonders. The transformation is an inner one. We come to know and grow in God's love for us by a relationship with Him through His word and by His Spirit.  


It's the other way around: your book being true has to be contingent on the existence of the god within it, as far as I can tell.
How would you know this God unless He had revealed Himself and He has chosen to do that by His word? The Bible reveals His word is powerful enough to create the universe, just by speaking it into existence.  Jesus spoke as one having authority. If you do not accept that authority how do you expect to know Him? He has made it the vehicle by which we come to faith through. 

As far as "making sense" of the "big questions," you're not doing that either. Your answer to all of these questions is "Well, god did it this way, it must make sense even if I can't tell exactly how, or impart exactly how to others in such a way that they concur, so therefore it makes sense."
No, my argument is that you can't make sense of the big questions without first presupposing God. If these ultimate questions are dependent on our subjective minds the question becomes which minds since we all seem to have different ideas on everything. There are always different theories being proposed as we learn more about our universe. It begs the question of how we know that what we know now is the correct theory. Thomas Kuhn explained this nicely in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 



It only pushed the question back one more step. Watch, I'll demonstrate: please advise why your existence makes sense. 


It only makes sense if a necessary Being has revealed what is true or we think the thoughts of such a being after Him.

Please advise why your or my thoughts are of any significance on why we are here or how you KNOW these thoughts are true regarding the big picture if there is no necessary being. I do not see you as necessary in my being and the same could be said of yours in regards to me (i.e., demonstrate I am here because of your being)? I don't believe you can demonstrate I am here because of chance happenstance but I am willing to hear your claim, however, I don't think this is the post for it since it specifically touches on prophecy. This banter is just a preamble because you asked for a reason.  

#30
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
How would you know this God unless He had revealed Himself and He has chosen to do that by His word? The Bible reveals His word is powerful enough to create the universe, just by speaking it into existence.  Jesus spoke as one having authority. If you do not accept that authority how do you expect to know Him? He has made it the vehicle by which we come to faith through. 
All of this are the claims of men, ignorant, primitive, superstious men. Do you have anything from your god?