Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:25, 8 November 2014

Judaism B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Seventh-day Adventist Church Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Seventh-day Adventist ChurchWikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist ChurchTemplate:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist ChurchSeventh-day Adventist Church Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Expand "Glacier View Controversy" section, to include more background, history, theological issues, and details of the Glacier View meeting itself Add to "Adventist Responses to Criticisms" section, ideally with material from Adventist scholars etc.

Another alternative?

One view that seems to missing from this article is actually one of the more popular (among non-Fundamentalist scholars, that is). It holds that the 'decree' should actually be dated from Jeremiah's prophecy that the Temple would be rebuilt (see Daniel 9:2, Jeremiah 29:10, Jeremiah 30:17-18, Jeremiah 31:38). Further, the Hebrew word 'dabar' is generally thought to be mistranslated in the KJV - in fact, it means 'word' as in 'the word of the Lord' (Dan 9:2). This then puts the start of the 70 'weeks' at the second siege, i.e. 587 BC. The first division of seven 'weeks' would then end at 536 BC - almost exactly the same time that Cyrus conquered Babylon and ended the Exile. (Also note that the KJV inserts a definite article before the word 'Messiah'. In fact, the text has no definite article - it should read 'an Anointed One', as in the RSV and NJB. The next division of 62 weeks would take us (approximately) to the time of Antiochus IV. The final 'week' would then refer to the seven years of persecution under Antiochus, from 171 BC (when the last Zadokite High Priest was murdered) to 164 BC (the death of Antiochus). It is also interesting to note that both Maccabees and Josephus point out that Antiochus violated his treaty of peace with the Jews in 167-168 BC - i.e. in the middle of the seventieth week (I Maccabees 1:29, Josephus Antiquities Book XX 11:3, Dan 9:27).

--Curtvdh 19:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The article certainly needs some expansion. For instance, the skeptical position is barely alluded to: "Skeptical scholars like J.A. Montgomery claim that the weeks are really the same as the years previously decreed. This allows for the fulfillment of the prophecy to reside in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes". OK, but how exactly? I see no mention of the events of the Maccabean Rebellion, the murder of the Anointed One (high priest), the Abomination of Desolation (the statue of Zeus in the temple) and so on. --Robert Stevens 14:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll get started on a revision - I'm familiar with the Maccabean Interpretation as well as the Dispensationalist. I need to do a little research on the Preterist interpretation, as well as the various Jewish interpretations. Fortunately, I have over 30 commentaries on Daniel covering all the major interpretations in my personal library, so I don't have to go far ;-) --Curtvdh 05:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing I remember Montgomery saying, which added weight to the Christian messiah theory was that the time periods didn't match up. But I think if you take 'return and restore' Jerusalem in Jeremiah's sense 25:5, the first seven weeks are an approximation of the time mentioned in verse 2 (including other prophets), 62 weeks from the 4th year of Jehoikim takes us to Onias III (I think). Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope Curtvdh gets back to us. At the present moment of time I lean towards Nethaniel West's interpretation in which he believes the first week took more than 49 years to be fulfilled as the years when the Jews were in apostasy and not building the wall are not to be counted. If your unfamiliar with West's theory I will dig out his dates. I am reluctant to abandon the belief that the last week has yet to be fulfilled.--Another berean (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I have preferred the Christian interpretation has been that the last verses speak of extermination - which happened in 70AD. But could Strong's number 3617 be 3615 - a verb. The consonants and pointings are the same, and it could be 'until finished' - no mention of extermination. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Philip Mauro - article required

We could do with a Misplaced Pages article about Philip Mauro (1859-1952), a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States and one of the foremost patent lawyers of his day. The biography by Gordon P. Gardiner could be a useful source to start this. See . DFH 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Chronology

This article, Book of Ezra, and Book of Nehemiah, all contain a lengthy section about trying to date the events shared in common. The section was added to this article by User:Wstruse (whose only edits have been to these three articles and his user page) and then added as a whole to the other two articles. Given the encyclopedic importance of the issue it should be in the Wiki, but it doesn't need to be in three places. Worse, I think this may well include a copy edit violation, given the non-sequitur nature of having Tables 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4, but no others. I am uncertain as to whether this should be broken out into a separate article or left as an article in this article, but it defnitely needs a rewrite, verification, and a check against possible copyvios. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It contains redundancies with the preceding section and also nonsense about Darius (who has enough years but is clearly not called Artaxerxes, wbich BTW is not a title but the actual name of the King nick-named Longimanus and later adopted as regnal names by Artaxerxes II, III (Ochus) and IV (Arses). Str1977 13:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite & Verification

Caerwine,

I agree, this chronology does not need to be in three places. I am not sure the best way to go about rectifying the situation. I provided the contribution with the hope that someone would be able to present it in a more desirable manner. I realize my writing skills leave much to be desired. As to the copy edit violations, the words as well as the tables are mine. The tables were created by me in Xcel format. I could not provide them as originally created hence the table without the format.

________

For those who may be interested in rewriting this information or verifying it the following may also be useful.

The Apocrypha is considered an extra-Biblical text that was not included in the Cannon of Scriptures that makes up the common Bible today. The Apocrypha contains the books of 1st Esdras & 2nd Esdras (also called 4th Esdras). The book of 1st Esdras is almost a word for word version of the Canonical books of Ezra, Nehemiah and part of Chronicles. 2nd Esdras (4th) contains much more information regarding Ezra and his prophetic visions relating to the end of the age and the Messianic era. None of 2nd Esdras (Ezra) is contained in the Canonical Scriptures. 1st Esdras and 2nd Esdras were in wide circulation up until at least the council of Trent. It is from Esdras that Josephus repeatedly quotes or references. Josephus died in 79 AD so it is likely that the books of Esdras were in circulation some decades before his death. It is likely that Esdras was based on the original Hebrew versions of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles that were in circulation at that time.

In 2nd Esdras (also called 4th Esdras), Ezra states that he was in Babylon 30 years after Jerusalem was destroyed. 2nd Esdras also states that Ezra was one of the last remaining prophets of his time.

4 Esdras 3:1-2 In the thirtieth year after the ruin of the city I was in Babylon, and lay troubled upon my bed, and my thoughts came up over my heart: 2 For I saw the desolation of Sion, and the wealth of them that dwelt at Babylon.

4 Esdras 10:44-48 44 This woman, whom thou sawest is Sion: and whereas she said unto thee, even she whom thou seest as a city builded, 45 Whereas, I say, she said unto thee, that she hath been thirty years barren: those are the thirty years wherein there was no offering made in her. 46 But after thirty years Solomon builded the city and offered offerings: and then bare the barren a son. 47 And whereas she told thee that she nourished him with labour: that was the dwelling in Jerusalem. 48 But whereas she said unto thee, That my son coming into his marriage chamber happened to have a fail, and died: this was the destruction that came to Jerusalem.

This book of 2nd (4th) Esdras confirms that Ezra was alive during the Babylonian captivity. Not only was he alive but 30 years after the destruction of Jerusalem (i.e. 556 BC) he was a respected prophet of the people in Babylon. This confirms the Canonical book of Ezra where it states that Seraiah the high priest was Ezra’s father. As a respected prophet 30 years after the destruction of Jerusalem Ezra is definitely a 1st generation member of the Judean captives. Ezra’s father died in around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem so at a minimum Ezra the prophet was 30 years old when these events are described in 2nd Esdras.

In 1909 Louis Ginzberg chronologically collated the traditions of the Jewish people found in the Talmud, Midrash and other traditional oral sources. These traditions or “Legends of the Jews” all centered on the oral traditions regarding the Scriptural narrative. Here are a few of excerpts from the “The Legends of the Jews”:

In the “Legends of the Jews” part XI. THE RETURN OF THE CAPTIVITY It states the following regarding Ezra:

…………….The complete resettlement of Palestine took place under the direction of Ezra, or, as the Scriptures sometimes call him, Malachi. He had not been present at the earlier attempts to restore the sanctuary, because he could not leave his old teacher Baruch, who was too advanced in years to venture upon the difficult journey to the Holy Land. …………………………….

In the “Legends of the Jews” part XI. THE RETURN OF THE CAPTIVITY It states the following regarding Daniel:

…………………….. The king consented on condition that Daniel designate a successor worthy of him. His choice fell upon Zerubbabel. Loaded with rich presents and amid public demonstrations designed to honor him, Daniel retired from public life. He settled in the city of Shushan, where he abode until his end. Though he was no prophet, God vouchsafed to him a knowledge of the "end of time" not granted his friends, the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, but even he, in the fulness of his years, lost all memory of the revelation with which he had been favored. …………..

Both of the above passages place Ezra as a contemporary with Daniel, Zerubbabel, Haggai and Zechariah. The 1st specifically state that Ezra was alive during the first attempts to restore the 2nd temple. The 2nd passage states that Ezra (also called Malachi) was a friend of Daniel. Granted the Apocrypha and Ginsberg’s “Legends of the Jews” are not considered “inspired” texts. At a minimum they are examples of historical documents that in fact do confirm the Scriptural record regarding Ezra as a 1st generation Babylonian exile who lived contemporaneously with Haggai, Zechariah, Zerubbabel and Daniel.

Regards, Wstruse Wstruse 21:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I find the Prophecy of Daniel's 70th Week wholly prejudiced in its emphasis and co-opted by the Seventh-Day Adventist brand of eschatology. Daniel's Seventieth Week is not the exclusive purview of the Adventists--most definitely, Dispensationalists or Progressive Dispensationalists are wholly engaged in the debate over the futurity of Daniel's Seventieth Week and have been since 1840. The futurity of Daniel's 70th Week is also a major emphasis in the early Church, especially in the third century (i.e., its total futurity in the writings of Hippolytus (his tractates on Daniel and Antichrist acclaim the entire 70th Week of Daniel is yet future). In particular, I find it disconcerting to attribute the work of Antichrist to Jesus Christ in that the antecedent in Daniel 9:27 (i.e., "he" shall confirm a covenant, etc.) was and is NOT Jesus Christ during His ministry or at His crucifixion or His resurrection, but that this "he" is none other than the previous individual mentioned in Daniel 9:26: "the prince who is to come" - the same one whose people destroyed the city of Jerusalem, and some say, yet future destruction of Jerusalem.

In all intellectual fairness, this article is wholly deficient and I believe the editors of Misplaced Pages must come to grips with what is actually a very one-sided presentation of this most significant piece of prophetic writ. MOST of American Evangelicalism holds to a Premillenarian view of Bible prophecy. And, in the main (witness "The Late Great Planet Earth" and the entire "Left Behind Series") affirms that the commencement of the Daniel's 70th Week is the "Treaty with Hell and Death" - the infamous Treaty between Antichrist and Israel to guarantee Israel's security in the "end of days."

There is a complete disconnect of Daniel 9:27 on the part of the Adventists from the the remaining verses of Daniel 7 through 12 (Chapters 7-12) which speaks directly and in context to what is going on in Daniel 9 - i.e., Daniel 9 is not a "stand alone" - there are a multitude of direct and adumbrative texts in Daniel which preclude that Daniel 9:27 be interpreted in isolation! Again, the Seventh-Day Adventists do not own the Seventieth Week of Daniel. Regards, DWKrieger kriegerdwm 00:36, 11 December 2007 (PST)

I believe we need to redo the structure of this article. I may not be the right one to do it (time, patience, and courage!), but suggest the following structure. I am particularly interested in the fulfilment section (section 6). There is some interesting history about the development of the Adventist thought, which may belong elsewhere? To be fair, we could also include history of the development of the other persuasions (eg preterist view). I've arbitrarily put the Jewish viewpoint first as they are less likely to accept the NT part of the Bible. So, how does it look?

• 7 Fulfillment
• 7.2 Jewish viewpoints
• 7.3 Christian Preterist viewpoint or Already Fulfilled by Christ's Time

(includes note that this view is held by Catholic faiths http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04621b.htm)

• 7.4 Christian Dispensationalist viewpoints or Partially fulfilled by Antioches Epiphanes

(includes notes that many Christians hold this view) (sometimes includes Messiah component)

• 7.5 Christian Historicist / Traditional viewpoints or Already fulfilled by Jesus Christ as Messiah

(Includes note that this view is held by Seventh-day Adventists) (Includes section on different timeline and note that this is held by Jehovah's Witnesses)

• 7.6 Christian Futurist viewpoints

(not sure if we need this)

• 7.7 Other interpretations

(if someone is neither Jewish nor Christian, would they be interested in Bible prophecy? I can't imagine yet, but maybe I'm missing something.) Relloblue (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Antichrist and Daniel's 70th Week

I find the Prophecy of Daniel's 70th Week wholly prejudiced in its emphasis and co-opted by the Seventh-Day Adventist brand of eschatology. Daniel's Seventieth Week is not the exclusive purview of the Adventists--most definitely, Dispensationalists or Progressive Dispensationalists are wholly engaged in the debate over the futurity of Daniel's Seventieth Week and have been since 1840. The futurity of Daniel's 70th Week is also a major emphasis in the early Church, especially in the third century (i.e., its total futurity in the writings of Hippolytus (his tractates on Daniel and Antichrist acclaim the entire 70th Week of Daniel is yet future). In particular, I find it disconcerting to attribute the work of Antichrist to Jesus Christ in that the antecedent in Daniel 9:27 (i.e., "he" shall confirm a covenant, etc.) was and is NOT Jesus Christ during His ministry or at His crucifixion or His resurrection, but that this "he" is none other than the previous individual mentioned in Daniel 9:26: "the prince who is to come" - the same one whose people destroyed the city of Jerusalem, and some say, yet future destruction of Jerusalem.

In all intellectual fairness, this article is wholly deficient and I believe the editors of Misplaced Pages must come to grips with what is actually a very one-sided presentation of this most significant piece of prophetic writ. MOST of American Evangelicalism holds to a Premillenarian view of Bible prophecy. And, in the main (witness "The Late Great Planet Earth" and the entire "Left Behind Series") affirms that the commencement of the Daniel's 70th Week is the "Treaty with Hell and Death" - the infamous Treaty between Antichrist and Israel to guarantee Israel's security in the "end of days."

There is a complete disconnect of Daniel 9:27 on the part of the Adventists from the the remaining verses of Daniel 7 through 12 (Chapters 7-12) which speaks directly and in context to what is going on in Daniel 9 - i.e., Daniel 9 is not a "stand alone" - there are a multitude of direct and adumbrative texts in Daniel which preclude that Daniel 9:27 be interpreted in isolation! Again, the Seventh-Day Adventists do not own the Seventieth Week of Daniel. Regards, DWKrieger kriegerdwm 00:36, 11 December 2007 (PST)

Verse 27 is not isolated from the rest, because verses 25-27 form a tight literary chiasm. It is the literary structure that defines who the antecedent is to which "he". In this case the literary structure is:

Jerusalem constructed

Messiah to come

Jerusalem constructed

Messiah comes to save others not himself

Jerusalem destroyed

Messiah cancels the written code, with its regulations, (i.e. the Temple ceremonial code/law) nailing it to the cross

Jerusalem destroyed

The "Left Behind Series" is a novel based on very sloppy interpretation of Bible Prophecy. Hal Lindsey was proven wrong in the 1980s when all his predictions were supposed to have come true. Christian Skeptic (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dating of the prophecy or authenticating it

Could the fact that the numbers in the prophecy are written out in full, rather than using numerals, allow for, although not prove, an earlier dating of Daniel 9. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This site says Hebrews generally used numbers spelt out (documents?) or, in inscriptions, frequently written according to well known 'arbitrary' symbols (while speculating that one instance of using alphabetic numerals at that age may have been found dating from 312BCE): http://books.google.com/books?id=2nHLqnmLNckC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=phoenician+numbers&source=web&ots=NV6LF8MUHE&sig=_2ls9xA6dmRM3FS_-FNcUy1gkMI The 'spelt out' numbers must be in the bible, but it does say this was also the practice of the Phoenicians. Although there are exceptions (there are inscriptions spelt out (such as the Moabite stone and the Siloam inscription - both of which at some time were claimed by scholars to be written after the claimed date(The Story of a Forgery and the Mesa Inscription, A. S. Yahuda and 'Was the Siloam Tunnel Built by Hezekiah', Rogerson and Davies), and manuscripts with numerals (the hypothetical proto-masoretic script)), this is a rough guide and there is no unequivocal correlation between style and chronology.

Archaic numbers: From 'Insight on the Scriptures' under Number, Numerals, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, it is said that numbers written on archaic Saloam Tunnel are fully spelled out. The Moabite stone is one example, dating from 930BCE. Could the writer have avoided numerals because of the official nature of the stone? In 'The Phoenician Stele Inscription from Cilicia' by R. Marcus and I.J.Gelb, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol 8, No 2 (Apr 1949) pp116-120, the Phoenician Stele (740BCE), an official artifact, included a vertical stroke for the number 1, for 1 sheep in column 3, line 2, "as normally in hieroglyphic Hittite". If this was a Phoenician inscription, the use of numerals is in accordance with Phoenician and Hebrew custom.

Six examples of archaic numbers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk • contribs) 11:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Moabite stone (Mid 9th century BC) includes the number thirty and forty as the reigns of kings. In an article in Vetus Testamentum (Vol 52, Fasc 4 (Oct 2002) pp483-492), J.A.Emerton says another author regarded the Moabite stone as a work of fiction (partly because of its' nicely rounded numbers). Emerton refuted this, but the question remains - why weren't numerals used on the Moabite stone? Possibly because of the simple rounded nature of both numerals. (Regarding the Siloam tunnel, In "Was the Siloam Tunnel Built by Hezekiah", John Rogerson and Philip R. Davies say: "...it is frequently not possible to prove on paleographic evidence alone whether a text in paleo-Hebrew dates from, say, the eighth-seventh centuries or is Hasmonean or later". But both these artifacts are well respected).

A paleo-Hebrew TELL QUDEIRAT Ostracon (another inscription) dates from 600BCE and uses hieratic numerals up to one hundred thousand: http://www.mathorigins.com/T.htm, obviously preferring the numerals to written form.

Samaritan Ostraca (800BCE) written in ink on shards of pottery (not broken from a whole vase) and having the same Phonecian script as the Moabite Stone and Siloam tunnel inscription: "The years mentioned are the ninth and tenth, which are always spelled in full, and two others, apparently eleventh and thirteenth, which are always expressed as figures" (Harvard Theological Review, "Hebrew Ostraca from Samaria"). Gandz ('Hebrew Numerals') says several other symbols appear as the number 15 and perhaps the number 17. The number 15 is identical to the hieratic numerals. This is the reverse of the numeral 1 and spelled out number thirty. The figures used in the Ostraca are years of reign, or dates. The figures in the above paragraph are part of remarks. However there are no numerals in the Old Testament at all, it seems the text has been edited and it would be unsafe to draw any chronological conclusions as it is at the moment.

In discussing the hypothetical proto-masoretic numbering system, some articles cite stone masons' marks on the wall of Jerusalem. This site, in the footnote, says the markings were verticle and horizontal strokes too: http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/gar/gar57.htm. But these are 'inscriptions as well. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A find of several sumerian tablets dating from ~600BC has the unusual feature that a lot of numbers in a mathematical table are spelt out as words. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0066-1546(1952)2%3C25%3ATSTAPN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In "Number Idioms of Old Babylonia" by Albrecht Gretze, in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol 5 #3 (Jul 1946) p186, it says in recently found mathematical tablets there were "a considerable number with phonetic spelling"

Late numbers: JSTOR: Solomon Gandz, Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research, Vol 4 (1932 - 1933) p 53 -112. p85 says: "However, T Reinbach already advocated the theory that these coins belong rather to a time of 66-70 AD. It is true, Reinbach in his learnerd article on Numismatics, in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, retracted his former opinion and favoured again the date of 139 BC, GA Cooke still holds... that the coins belong to the first revolt against the Romans." The coins were dated for example 'first year' using the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Reinbach's reasoning is available on line at the Jewish Encyclopaedia under ' Date of coins' in the section referred to - numismatics. The section above the dating of coins contains the command to mint them. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=368&letter=N&search=numismatics#1153

Here numerals, which are usually reserved for inscriptions are used in manuscripts. This encyclopaedia says the Elephantine papryi in Aramaic used verticle strokes for units and horozontal strokes for tens. http://books.google.com/books?id=bb6BV_AD5e8C&pg=RA2-PA556&lpg=RA2-PA556&dq=lachish+letters+numbers&source=web&ots=vCFBQMIf9o&sig=vYMsVzsA5Al80U79JARjUGJbBgo Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC) It seems clear this was the phoenician numbering system as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Phoenician_alphabet#The_numerals —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

Archaic writings testify to the use of numerals - with the Hebrews adopting the contemporary system in use. It is mysterious that there are no numerals in the Old Testament (as stated by "Insight on the Scriptures".

If it is true that numbers, in all cultures, graduated from spelt-out form to numerals wone would expect the New Testament ot be mainly cipher numbers. This link says that this is the case, even though Nestle writes them out: http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Mathematics.html 121.91.33.130 (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It would not be a very substantial argument in any case, as it's generally agreed that Daniel purports to be a product of the 6th century BC. If I was writing a fake Shakespeare play, I'd use the language and style of that period, not modern English. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If the choice of spelled out numbers is due to a Hebrew preference for this in formal text, as Robert Stevens said the writer would naturally prefer this if he was writing as if from God.

Infact there must have been cipher numbers in a copy of the Masoretic text around the time of the writing of the septuagint as the Emphatic Diaglott says http://www.divineplan.org/htdbv5/r1980.htm: ""A difficulty occurs here which has very much puzzled Bible chronologists. The date given here is at variance with the statement found in 1 Kings 6:1. There have been many solutions offered, but only one seems entirely satisfactory; i.e., that the text in 1 Kings 6:1has been corrupted by substituting the Hebrew character daleth (4) for hay (5), which is very similar in form. This would make 580 (instead of 480) from the exodus to the building of the temple, and exactly agree with Paul's chronology."

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Although a more recent book on chronology states different reasons, not resorting to copying errors: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZkBasQYRy4sC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=%221+kings+6+1%22+chronology&source=web&ots=VtNiE1tIgS&sig=CbTfl2eS3NYzcESfLQW3YlhvEQU

Am I right in thinking that the Dead Sea Scrolls only have a few fragments of Daniel and none of the key verses relating to the 70 weeks were discovered? This is a pity as I hold the opinion that radiocarbon dating methods can be very accurate--Another berean (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked this link http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/266 and you are right, Daniel 9 was not found, thanks Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Although I checked some other sources and three or four fragments of one word length were found from the prayer of Daniel 9. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) "Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran Part1: A preliminary edition of 4QDana"BASOR 268 Eugene Ulrich, p17:" consists of only five tiny fragments all from the prayer in chapter 9, but none with more than one complete word"

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel 9's conservative dating

Three or four fragments of one word length were found from the prayer of Daniel 9. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) "Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran Part1: A preliminary edition of 4QDana"BASOR 268 Eugene Ulrich, p17:" consists of only five tiny fragments all from the prayer in chapter 9, but none with more than one complete word"

The author of this writing gives a future dated (AD) prophetic interpretation of Daniel 9's 70 weeks from the Essenes and mentions that the Pharasees also had a similar prophetic interpretation. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0048-1009%28199810%2940%3A4%3C407%3AC%26CJ%26C%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But if the mechanism of prophecy is prophetic dramas (Gal 4:24), Antiochus Epiphanes could have inspired the 70 week prophecy. The word 'understanding' seen in this context could (I wonder) be 'inspired dark sentences' (Dan 8:23).

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a style of writing would be in keeping with the Bible's style of hyperbole. A tidal wave saves the leaving Israwlites: Moses divided the water and the Israelites didn't even get their feet wet; God creates heaven and earth: but the earth puts forth animals; Moses goes up into an active volcano:the earthquakes are called trumpets; a plague kills 185000 Assyrians who were to attack Judah: the king is saved from Assyrian crucifixion miraculously and Psalm 22 has salience.to Christians...

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Can anyone explain why from Jesus' birth to the fall of Jerusalem is roughly 70 years? - referring to the 70 sabbaths

Is it some sort of parousia of the Lord of the Sabbath?

Jesus said he would be with us until the conclusion Matt 28:20; which could be the destruction of Jerusalem in Matt 24

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to enter this in the article as it is a theory but as Gabriel mentions 'a word went forth' could Daniel's words the 'going forth' of the word imply Jesus' going forth from the house of Judah or Bethlehem (Micah 5:1-2) and a seventy Sundays begin from then and end at Jerusalem's destruction. The word 'going forth' is discussed in http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=8815 under mo-tsaw'. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoever created the calendar could have back-dated the birth of Christ to 70 years before the fall of Jerusalem. 216.232.242.7 (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Historical Facts?

I guess I don't understand what you are getting at. All those dates and events are historical and can even be found on other WP pages. What is it that doesn't make them facts? SDA's didn't make them up. Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources for which facts? You are extremely vague. You have yet to prove that there is anything controversial about any of the facts about the reconstruction of Jerusalem. And you expect that we are supposed to just take your word for it?! Jerusalem was destroyed. Jerusalem was rebuilt. The exact dates are relatively unimportant. What's your problem....... Christian Skeptic (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you object to the SDA Bible Commentary? It is just as good as any other Bible commentary. Just in case you didn't know, the SDA church is the second or third largest protestant church in the world with some 16 to 17 million members. It operates at least 10 Universities (i.e., Loma Linda University and Medical Center) besides many more colleges, hundreds of secondary schools, and thousands of elementary schools. It has operated government approved archeological digs in Jordan and Israel for more than 40 years. All digs have been published in appropriate journals. To accuse SDA scholars of being unaware of archeology is an argument based on abysmal ignorance. Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Who are you talking to?--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

to JoshuaZ. Christian Skeptic (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing JoshuaZ's edit, he is correct. An SDA source is not an impartial source for validating details asserted to be facts by SDAs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the first paragraph above, the very same information is found on several other WP pages, and they have been linked. So his asking for sources for data already established on WP is ridiculous. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, an SDA source is not a valid source for confirming SDA beliefs as fact. If there are other sources, use them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't using an SDA source to confirm any SDA belief as a fact. And I don't understand which facts you are talking about? You are just as vague as the other guy. Exactly what 'facts" are you talking about??

The only "historical facts" I was talking about was the reconstruction of Jerusalem after the exile and it's destruction by the Romans. Both of those are well-known historical facts independent of anything SDAs might believe. Kennedy was shot in Houston in 1961. This is a historical fact regardless of all those who believe that Nostradamus predicted his death. Christian Skeptic (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

But you wouldn't use a reference from Nostradamus to establish when Kennedy was shot, you would use a reference that is universally accepted. That is the point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't used prophecy to establish when Jesus was baptized. The date of Jesus baptism comes from Luke (which is not a prophecy but a narrative) that mentions the year of Tiberius that John began baptizing and Jesus baptized by John (i.e. 27 AD). It happens, however, that calculating the prophetic 483 years from 457 BC (the 7th year from the historical date of Artaxerxes beginning to reign) one also gets 27 BC. The prophecy doesn't establish the date of the baptism, rather the baptismal date establishes the prophecy. some may argue that Daniel wasn't written until the 2nd century BC., But that doesn't help. There were no calendars back then. An author in the 2nd century BC would not know how far back came the decree of Artaxerxes, neither would he know the year of the beginning of the ministry of the Messiah. Even the author of Luke would not know the date of Artaxerxes, because there was no common calendar by which to date old events such as we have today. The concordance of the timing of the prophecy with the events in the 1st century BC are impossible to account for but for God being the author of the prophecy. Trying to apply the prophecy of Daniel 9 to any other event, especially anything in the 2nd C. BC, is an exercise in futility. It cannot possibly approach the accuracy of that applyed to Jesus. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There are so many layers of speculation in this that it is barely worth responding to. The fact that Josephus later was able to present historical records prior to Artaxerxes invalidates the claim that Luke could not have had access to such records. When the later Christian re-interpretation of Daniel 9 is removed, the chapter is not actually a Messianic prophecy at all, but rather, 'Messiah' (משיח, mashiyach) in Daniel 9:25-26 actually refers to Cyrus, in reference to the 'anointed one' at Isaiah 45:1, where the same Hebrew word is found. The re-appliction to Jesus was back-formed later.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The accuracy of historical dates is much better today than in those days. It is impossible for anyone to have faked these prophecies and faked "fulfillment" of the prophecies to make them come out with the accuracy they have. Jewish scholars over centuries have proposed many ideas to try to explain the Bible, but that doesn't mean they have truth in them. Christian Skeptic (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Using an SDA source to confirm that SDA hold certain beliefs sounds pretty good to me. (Aside from the fact that the beliefs are completely nutty). PiCo (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The primary concern with my tagging it as facts were the dates given which are in the SDA material but are not as far as I'm aware accepted by all secular scholars. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Were you tagging just that paragraph, or the entire section? The only date in the paragraph is 70AD for the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, which is the accepted date so far as I know. The mass of other dates elsewhere in the section tends to give me a headache - I think the whole section could be reduced by about half and made more comprehensible. PiCo (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I was tagging that these were "historical facts" in that the details especially the dates aren't agreed upon and seemed to be primarily the SDA chronology. There's no issue using the SDA's own sources for their chronology but then we need an independent source stating that those dates are correct. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I put links to other WP pages where dates for the reconstruction and destruction of Jerusalem are given. SDA's use commonly accepted historical dates for these events as found in just about any historical source. The computations shown in the illustrations are based upon commonly accepted dates for the beginning of the reigns of Artaxerxes and Tiberius (again see the WP links to confirm the dates). Even the distinction between civil and religious Jewish Calendars is linked to WP, it is not an SDA invention. Everything else is SDA interpretation sourced from SDA literature. Thus, there are non-SDA sources for all base historical dates in the section. If you have a problem with SDA interpretation, fine, but the base starting dates are long accepted dates for historical events. Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't see that there's any need for sections on SDA and Jehovah's Witnesses viewpoints - they're just subsets of Christian beliefs, and pretty marginal ones at that (both are tiny sects). Perhaps both should be reduced to a sentence each in the Christian section. PiCo (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

These sections have to do with historicist and dispensationalist interpretations. If you are going to drastically cut the historicist interpretation, then the dispensationalist interpretation needs to be cut just as much. The historicist interpretation was the primary interpretation of Daniel by nearly all Protestants up through the 19th century. Dispensationalist interpretation has grown in popularity since the mid-19th century to where it has become the majority view today. But to ignore the historicist interpretation would be to ignore or rewrite history. It's not up the the editors to rewrite history, but to present what is and was. Perhaps a separate page on the historicist interpretation (and another for the dispensationalist interpretation) of the 70 weeks is in order. Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

After a quick review of the article, I'm even more convinced that the Christian Views section is far too long - far, far longer than either the Jewish Views section (and Daniel is, after all, a Jewish book) or the Secular Views section (if that's what it's called). If you make your section too long, you risk losing readers - will they want to wade through all this? Have a go at reducing the whole Christian section to the same length as the Jewish section. At the very least, it'll be a useful exercise in condensing your argument. PiCo (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the prophecies of Daniel have played a much larger place in Christianity than in Judaism. The entire Protestant movement was predicated on the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. One would expect much more from Christiany than Judaism on the topic. This is especially so since a ban was placed by rabbis warning Jewish people away from reading Daniel. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Protestant movement was predicated on the abuses and corruption of the early Renaissance Catholic Church, but that's not really to the point. I'm not arguing that the Christian section should be drastically curtailed itself, but that there's no need for separate SDA and Jehovah Witness sections, nor for the entire entry to be quite so long and detailed. PiCo (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Abuses and corruption were a part of it, but there was much more. It was recognized that these factors and others were due to apostasy from many Biblical truths as the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation predicted would happen by the Church causing it to be identified as the Antichrist. As for size, this article is only 48 kb long. The article about the Book of Daniel is 65 kb. And what's wrong with detail that is clear and easily readable and well illustrated. Also, there are separate JW sections in several of the other articles on Daniel's prophecies. Christian Skeptic (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed clauses

I think that the disputed clauses should not have built in commentary, but rather a note/link to where a commentary/explanation can be found lower down in the article. (i.e. such as in the Jewish interpretation section below.) Otherwise, this could become a rather cumbersome section as all kinds of note may be added to explain various positions.

Just for the record, in vs. 24 I agree that it is Most holy Place. However, I go with The Anointed One or Messiah for the other verses. as you say, Messiah the Prince not a name but a title, or two titles actually. Some don't put much stock in the scholarship of the original translators of the Bible into English. But, I have no confidence in Modern Scholarship which is primarily atheistic and skeptical and based upon reinterpretation of the texts within Naturalism's "Higher Criticism" which is basically BS. I'll go with believers interpretation any day over unbelievers. Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified 9:25, indicating that Hebrew punctuation isn't the issue. The Masoretic text is only making explicit the meaning present in the text, a punctuation not used by the translators of the KJV who arrived at the same meaning. I have therefore omitted the following sentence which doesn't deal with the substantive issue.

Since the Dead sea scrolls have no punctuation, ref: The Dead Sea scrolls predate the Masoretic text by 1000 years. They contain parts of all the books of the Hebrew Bible but for Esther. Not one scrap of scroll has pronunciation nor punctuation marks. /ref Some Christians consider the insertion of punctuation here in the Masoretic text to be inaccurate.

--spin (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Original research

This is some original research, so I included it here. The LXX and MT differ in that the LXX uses the word 'temple' in vs 27; the MT uses 'overspreading'. But according to Gesesius כָּנָף can mean 'highest summit' of the temple - so the LXX was right in its' translation but it can also mean a shirt, skirt, surrounding, cornering...and I think this is close to the MT meaning and it reflects what happened in 70CE. So both authorities, the MT and LXX are respectable. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Establishing The 20th Year of Artaxerxes Reign

Overview

This discussion explores the evidence that tends to establish or qualify suggested dates for the 20th Year of Artaxerxes Reign. This is of importance as it tends to establish the beginning of the Seventy Weeks of Years as per Daniel Chapter 9, taken from a historical view.

I have laid out a outline which I hope my peers will find helpful. I hope you will freely enter your findings within the skeleton provided. It is my intention to add this as a section to an appropriate area of the main page in due course. Enjoy.

Evidence for 455 BC?

How long did Artaxerxes Longimanus rule?

Was it only for 41 years, or was it 51 years?

Evidence that Artaxerxes Longimanus ruled beyond his 41st year

(Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Vol. VII: Tablets From Sippar 2, by E. Leichty and A. K. Grayson, 1987, p. 153; tablet designated B. M. 65494) which is a commercial document from Borshippa containing dates relating to Artaxerxes 50th year.

However some suggest that this contains a typo, and that it should say 40th year.

Perhaps other more relevant tablets will be unearthed in due course. After all, Archaeology Odyssey states: “Experts estimate that somewhere between one and two million cuneiform tablets have already been excavated, and another 25,000 or so are found every year.” (Obviously not all relating to the subject of Artaxerxes or even Persia.)

This is a large workload for Cuneiform scholars. According to one estimate, “only about 1/10 of the extant cuneiform texts have been read even once in modern times.” (source?) You can see why they get only read once, cuneiform is soooo dry.

So perhaps there is further evidence, even a mass of it, yet awaiting translation. But that's a original synthesis so I won't repeat it.

Greek sources

Establishing The Death Date of Themistocles

The death of Themistocles seems pivotal in fixing the start of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. What evidence is there to support the several dates suggested by commentators?

Diodorus Siculus

Thucydides

Plutarch’s Lives

M. de Koutorga

E. Levesque

Persian sources

Was there really a coregency of Xerxes with Darius? Artaxerxes Longimanus was the successor of Xerxes, and a consideration of factors supporting or denying a coregency may solve some historical riddles.

Sculpture & Bas Reliefs

Babylonian sources

Palace Excavations

A. 124

VAT 4397

Evidence for ? BC

could put evidence that strongly supports alternate years here.

El presidente sooty (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Context

I have cleaned up some of the POV in this section, but it is still unsourced and does not provide a good balance of views. Nowhere does the Bible specify that the Jews were in captivity for exactly 70 years. Also, no mention is made in the article of the 70 year period between 609 (fall of Harran to the Babylonians) and 539 (fall of Babylon to the Medo-Persians).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Replaced JPS 1917 Edition with Judaica Press Translation

The JPS 1917 edition is not a true "Jewish translation."

The original 1917 JPS Tanach is oftne quoted and found all over the internet because the copyright is over so it is easy to find online. Because it was published by Jews (Jewish Publication Society) they assume that it is a Jewish translation, but it is nothing more than a slightly modified KJV / ERSV. Dr. Welty has fallen into the same error as many others who try to use it to support Chrstian arguments that it is an accurate "Jewish" translation from the Hebrew / Aramaic "source."

The Preface to the 1985 JPS admits that the 1917 edition is not in reality a Jewish translation:

Quote: "With the rise of Protestantism in Europe, scholars within the movement set themselves the task of making the Bible available in the various vernaculars of the time.

By 1526 the first parts of two notable translations began to appear: Martin Luther's in German and William Tyndale's in English. The latter, by way of several subsequent revisions, became the King James Version of 1611.

The more modern English versions - such as The Holy *****ures by the American Rabbi Isaac Leeser (1855), the (British) Revised Version (1881-1885), the American Standard Version (1901), the Jewish Publication Society's The Holy Scriputes (1917), and the (American) Revised Standard Version (1952) - made extensive use of the King James."

Leonard Greenspoon is an authority on bible translations speaks about the 1917 JPS in his article "Birth of a Bible" most "translations" into English were based on the KJV until as late as the 1960s and 1970s. There were one or two in the 19th century, but they weren't widely accepted and went out of print. From Greenspoon:

Quote: the earliest English versions were either

(a) a volume with KJV on one side, the Hebrew text facing, with a few Jewish exegetical notes at the bottom of the page; or

(b) a listing of KJV passages that needed to be corrected either because they were erroneous or should be improved upon.

There was a reluctance among Jews to part company with the KJV, even after Protestants began to experiment with entirely new translations rather than KJV revisions. This was the case as late as the JPS 1917 version, which is a rather light revision of the English Revised Version of 1885 (a direct descendant of KJV),although no reader of the JPS version would discern this on the basis of the title page or introduction. Such reluctance says a great deal about the Jewish communitys self-image as well as the image it wished to project for outsiders.

Therefore the 1917 JPS should not be used as a "Jewish" source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiee1 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Traditional Rabbinic perspective

I think that I did a good job in presenting the traditional Rabbinic perspective, which was sorely lacking. I think that the whole article needs to be rewritten and reorganized, so as to avoid repetition and other problems. Unfortunately, I can't do much to improve the christian element, which needs to be condensed as well as be more clear. I also think that the whole table (called disputed clauses) is unnecessary, done very poorly, and combersome. Does someone have the guts to remove it? Nossond (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just edit what you have expertise in and leave that which you don't for others. You are correct that there are parts of the article which are not well sourced. You can call attention to that with fact notes. You can rewrite that which you are well versed in. You could probably edit other parts as long as you strive to keep the intent of the material. Other editors will be watching. The point of the article is to give the various positions on the subject. Allenroyboy (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Are three different translations of the same passage necessary?

Seems a little overkill to me. NIV has a margin reading which says 'sevens' is also translated as weeks. Opinions? Willfults (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration with Willfults

Willfults, I look forward to collaborating with you to make this a better Misplaced Pages article. I see that you have employed the principle of deletionism in your edits to thie article -- you deleted content that you described as being not properly referenced, or original research, instead of marking the content you found questionable with Misplaced Pages template tags like 'Unreferenced' or 'Original Research'. I will follow your lead and continue employing the philosophy of deletionism to current content that does not meet the Misplaced Pages standards of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Let's discuss the content here on Talk page and come to a consensus before putting it back.

You noted that you did take the trimming of the 3 different bibles to the Talk page. If you felt that taking such a relatively peripheral, non-contentious item to the Talk page appropriate, then kal va-chomer surely you will agree that taking the core subject matter content to the Talk page is essential.

Thanks very much... Zad68 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Context (collaboration with Willfults)

Here is the 'Context' section removed from article. It does not meet the Misplaced Pages standards of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. My notes:

1. I understand that all of this must be the particular viewpoint of a particular sect of Christianity, and as such it must be tagged with that context clearly. I'm not even sure which Christian denomination's viewpoint it is.
2. It needs to be changed so that it does not appear that Misplaced Pages has a particular religious viewpoint -- for example, a Misplaced Pages article should not give Jesus the title 'Christ', and instead it should refer to him as 'Jesus.' Likewise, it is not WP:NPOV to refer to Jesus with the capitalized pronouns He or Him.
3. The biblical references are only useful if they are provided in the context of a scholarly analysis. A Misplaced Pages article cannot depend on a particular person's biblical exegesis as the one, definitive interpretation for all denominations and religions. I did not see any scholarly references in this section.

Willfults - can you please help by addressing these items? I am not a Greek scripture scholar and I think you would do a better job of this than I would. Thanks! Zad68 (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

— Mark 1:14, 15

Willfults liked to cut and past from other web pages. He didn't have what it takes to write something original. happily he is blocked.... Johnjonesjr (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually he was not blocked, but he has quit editting since a RFC was filed against him. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Eschatology-oriented edits

A lot of the content of all these eschatology pages was getting duplicated, because each of the views had to be heard on each of the pages. I've moved much of the interpretations to their respective view pages (for example, taken the Futurist view of the Book of Revelation and put it on the Futurism (Christianity) page), in the hopes of minimizing duplication, keeping source pages unimpeded by eschatological disputes, and making it more clear what comprises each of the eschatologies. I've moved some of the comparisons among these views to the Christian eschatology page, so that the core differences can be contrasted in one place. Skinrider (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This editor is a hit and run pov pusher. This was otherwise a balanced article, it needed work, but... He removed all but the POV he wanted. I'm going to replace the parts he deleted. ColumbiaRiverDiver (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

chronological order.

I suggest that the order of the Interpretation of prophecy section, which is:

   4.1 Mainstream scholarship
   4.2 Jewish viewpoints
   4.3 Christian viewpoints

be put in chronological order:

   4.1 Jewish viewpoints 
   4.2 Christian viewpoints
   4.3 Mainstream scholarship

CedricElijahHenry (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Seventy weeks of Daniel

In my view the contents of this page is very poor. None of the various views is properly represented, and discussion of the text is absent— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniekerk (talk • contribs) 04:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Broadening the Context. Is this original research?

All discussion of this prophecy reduces to beliefs hedged in by immovable historical facts. But how large a body of believers must there be before a well formed belief is entitled to representation? For example, consider the following modification of the historical-messianic interpretation that broadens the context of the prophecy considerably, linking Jewish, Christian, and Islamic developments. According to it, Daniel’s use of the expression “time, times, and half a time” refers to three consecutive (and slightly overlapping) eras, having durations in a 1: 4: 1/2 ratio. The first “time” is the 490 years measured out by the seventy week prophecy and is that Meridian of Time whose fulfillment under Jesus was recognized in Mark 1:15 as well as Galatians 4: 4. It matches up with the Seventh Day Adventist interpretation. The “times” era refers to the Times of the Gentiles, the midpoint of whose 28 year fulness period, for Christians, came in 1844 with the restoration of temple activity and a covenant making people among the gentiles (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). This fulfilment corresponds to Daniel 8: 13-14, and comes at the end of the associated 2300 year count. It also suggests that the fruition period for Muslims corresponds with the establishment of the Bahai faith, that stretches from about 1857 to 1957. The era of the Gentiles itself ran for 1960 years, ending in approximately 1957. The third era, the Time of the End, is of 245 years duration. But its fulness period (of 3.5 year duration) is marked by the measuring out of 2625 years, based on Daniel’s 2625 years (1290 + 1335) of chapter 12. The beginning of that 2625 years can be anywhere between 605 and 457 B.C., with its ending then between 2021 and 2169 CE. The 605 B.C. date measures from Jeremiah’s recording and making public his prophecies regarding Jerusalem, which laid the background for the seventy week prophecy. If one uses it, the 1290 years thus end at the start of the construction of the Dome of the Rock, an expanded veneration of this holy site, while the subsequent 1335 years takes us to 2021. The expectation for the fulness period for the Time of the End is not one of world-wide cataclysmic destruction too frequently associated with this era, but rather of events that affect a reconciliation between Jew, Muslim, and Christian, and renewed veneration for our common heritage and spiritual kinship. It is simply a transition period to a subsequent era of peace, spiritual growth, and accomplishment. After the ending of this, the third of these preparatory eras, there hopefully stretch long harvest years of spiritual maturity for the human race. The only source for this interpretation of which I am aware is the book Prophetic Eras. ref: Prophetic Eras, Arithmetic Patterns in an Ongoing Fulfillment of Prophecies attributed to Daniel, ISBN 978-0-9830739-0-1 /ref. 67.206.185.174 (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Samdhatta

I have a problem with this sentence.

"It also supposes that the Babylonian empire was succeeded by a Median empire under "Darius the Mede", who, it is implied in Daniel 6:28, gave way to Cyrus the Persian, but no Darius is known to history and Cyrus the Great of Persia was the conqueror of Babylon (5 BCE)"

This may accurately reflect what the sources say, but the book of Daniel does not mention a "Median empire". In 9:1 it says "Darius, the son of Xerxes, a Mede by birth" and 5:31 say "Darius the Mede." This is simply stating his ancestry.

Nor does the book of Daniel say that Darius conquered Babylon. Rather it says in 9:1 that Darius was appointed king and in 5:31 that he took over the kingdom at age 62 (he was an old man). Those are hardly the terms one would use for a conquering king of some empire. It is well known that Cyrus the Great, who was king of both Media and of Persia, conquered Babylon. It does not conflict with this fact for Cyrus to have appointed someone in his stead for a time till he should want the throne in Babylon. And it is not shocking for that person to be otherwise unknown to history. So I suggest the following adjusted statement.

"It also supposes that "Darius the Mede" was appointed king in Babylon, who, it is implied in Daniel 6:28. gave way to Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians. Darius is otherwise unknown to history. Cyrus the Great was conqueror of Babylon (538 BCE)."

--RoyBurtonson (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of discussion about this in the literature. The important point is simply that Darius the Mede is unknown in history - no inscriptions, no mentions in Greek histories (Herodotus was very thorough). The only ones to mention him are obviously taking him from Daniel - that's Josephus and some later Christian-era rabbinical works. If you like you can just cut the sentence back to something like a king called Darius the Mede who is unknown to history - keep the ideas from the source that are least controversial. PiCo (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

To me, that Darius is unknown in history is nearly irrelevant because you have to take positions not found in the text to suppose that he would be found elsewhere. There is nothing that indicates that Darius was anything more than a member of Cyrus' army of Medians and Persians who earned the right to be appointed king of Babylon by Cyrus. The Greek 'histories' have been wrong before. Take for instance the Hittites, who were not mentioned in history (but for the Bible) until their cities and civilization were dug up from the ground just a century ago. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to try to excuse the book's historical accuracy, we just need to sketch the historical background to the 70 weeks prophecy. There are two elements that are essential, the in-story setting of the "1st year of Darius," and the author's setting of around 167-164 BC. That Darius is unknown to history is curious, and makes it rather hard to place Daniel 9 in real history, but the author apparently means the first year of or after the conquest of Babylon. As this was by Cyrus, not the other wise unknown Darius, that makes the unknown-ness of Darius material to us - we have to note that the author of Daniel apparently means the year of the fall of Babylon. 121.127.201.104 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The text does not say that Darius captured Babylon. It states that Darius was "appointed king" in chapter 9 and "took over" in chapter 5. But it says nothing about him capturing or conquering Babylon. Who had the power to appoint any king over Babylon? The real conqueror of Babylon--Cyrus? So to claim that the book of Daniel says an unknown Median king captured Babylon is a lie. And a lie supported by 'reliable sources' is still a lie.

Making a big deal out of Darius being "unknown" is a red herring. Everyone knows that Cyrus captured Babylon, and the text in Daniel does not contradict that point. Most everyone ASSUMES that Cyrus chose to become king of Babylon at the very time when he captured it. But there is no historical evidence stating exactly when Cyrus took the throne. It doesn't matter if it may seem logical that he would take it right away, but that is based on no evidence.

There is no attempt here to "excuse" the historical accuracy of the book of Daniel. It is flawed assumptions and false conclusions that lead some to think that there are historical inaccuracies in the book. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyrus king of medes and persians

According to the Cyrus WP page Cyrus' regal titles in full were The Great King, King of Persia, King of Anshan, King of Media, King of Babylon, King of Sumer and Akkad, and King of the Four Corners of the World. His first conquest was to take the kingdom of the Medes under whom he first lived and to whom he was related. A large part of his army was made up of Medes. So to emphasize that Cyrus was JUST king of the Persians is painting a false picture. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

How to approach the "later interpretations" section

(Just to clarify, "later" means later than the time the book was written - so it includes everything from the Dead Sea Scrolls up to the modern period).

I think we're going in the wrong direction by having subsections on Jehovah Witnesses, Adventists, etc. It leads to repetition. Better to look at it in terms of the questions that the text leaves open, and how these have been handled - often the answers have been identical across centuries.

The questions are of two broad types, the meaning of the chronology and the identity of the persons and events.

The big problem with the chronology is the start-date for the seventy weeks. The text is far from clear - it just says "from the time the word went out." There have been (and still are) many theories as to what that means,but no agreement. The suggestions have included: 605, the date of the battle of Carchemish; 597 or soon after, the date of Jeremiah's letter to the exiles in Babylon; 586, the date of the fall of Jerusalem; various suggested dates in the 400s when a Persian king wrote to allow Ezra or alternatively Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem (two different possible kings, several different possible dates).

The second problem with the chronology is that however you look at the start date, the 490 years runs out far too soon and the end of the world doesn't come. There have been several answers to this, as well.

The identity of persons and events is comparatively simpler. Christians universally take the "anointed one" to be Jesus. The "ruler to come" is normally taken to be the antichrist, though I think there are other candidates. Beyond that there's less agreement over things such as the abomination etc.

Anyway, I think it would be better to approach this part by subject rather than on the basis of JW, Adventists etc. Comments?PiCo (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are many interpretations of these texts. Froom documents hundreds of interpretations, but shows that over time, consensus grew on most points. Just because there are many different interpretations doesn't mean one needs to mention all of them, for many of them, such as by individual scholars, are of minority view. The historistical and dispensational interpretations are by far the most common interpretations across time, along the Catholic Futurism and Preterism. The SDA position is the culmination of the protestant historistical approach. Modern scholarship represent a minority viewpoint and as you said there is little consensus there. Even if there is consensus, they represent such a small group that due weight must be considered. Just because some idea is modern doesn't mean that it is any better or more important than previous ideas. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Modern scholarship has to be rendered according to WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: You mean this I think - I'll paste it here for reference:

• In the case of beliefs and practices, Misplaced Pages content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Misplaced Pages articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.

• Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Misplaced Pages editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as Rev. Carlin) believe This and That, and also believe that This and That have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days; however, influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work) certain sects — calling themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists — still believe This, but instead of That now believe Something Else."

• Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, mythology, and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. Misplaced Pages articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found in the Manual of Style.

The first bullet is obviously relevant to why we prioritise scholarship over belief - scholars explain how the beliefs developed (which is what the first section of the article is doing). The second and third demonstrate how religious beliefs such as those of Adventism should be written up ("Adventists and Witnesses believe X, while Catholics and Jews believe Y), plus some advice on using scholarly language. PiCo (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

490 years and the end of the world

The 490 years is not about the end of the world. look at verse 24 again.

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,(KJV)
Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city(NIV)

The 490 years apply especially to the Jewish nation and Jerusalem.

to finish the transgression,(KJV)
to finish transgression,(NIV)

During this time the Jewish nation will fill up (finish) the cup of their iniquity (transgressions).

to make an end of sins,(KJV)
to put an end to sin ,(NIV)

As the antitype of the typical sacrificial system, Jesus' death meant the end of that system. No more sin offerings were needed.

to make reconciliation for iniquity,(KJV)
to atone for wickedness,(NIV)

By his vicarious sacrifice on Calvary Jesus provided reconciliation for all sinners (the wicked) who accept his sacrifice.

to bring in everlasting righteousness,(KJV)
to bring in everlasting righteousness,(NIV)

By his life, death, and resurrection Jesus has made everlasting righteousness available to every man who, in simple faith, is willing to accept it.

to seal up the vision and prophecy,(KJV)
to seal up vision and prophecy(NIV)

The fulfilment of predicitions of the messiah at the time specified in the prophecies confirm (seal up) the prophecies as true.

and to anoint the most Holy.(KJV)
and to anoint the Most Holy Place.(NIV)

Moses was told in Ex 25:9 to make the tabernacle exactly like the pattern he was shown, because it served as a copy and shadow of what is in heaven.(Heb 8:5) Just as the Most Holy Place in Moses' tabernacle was anointed by sacrificial blood before it could be used, so too, Jesus blood anointed the heavenly Most Holy Place so it could be used in future judegment.

The 490 years cover the time from Daniel to the Messiah, not to the end of the world. Comments based on SDA Bible Commentary, a typical historistical source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyBurtonson (talk • contribs) 19:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The 490years ends with the coming of the kingdom of God, which is what's meant by the "end of the world" (end of the ordinary world). Your interpretation is a Christian one - Daniel is a Jewish book, and the intention of the authors was within the context of Jewish history of the mid-2nd century. We need to cover 3 "meanings" in out article: that original meaning, the meaning it had to Jews and primitive Christians (who were Jews themselves), and the meanings it came to have for later Christianity, of whom Adventists are one group. Adventist interpretation needs to be covered, but it can't be preferenced. PiCo (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I just checked about 10 different translations and none of them say "end of the world." I even checked the original Hebrew. The texts do talk about an end, but in context, it is the end of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation in war at the hands of the "Prince to come". It sounds like some modern scholar was lazy and made some wild assumptions. The visions of Daniel 2, 7, 8 and 11-12 are not about the Jewish people, but nations of the world. They talk about a judgment and end of the world with God setting up a final kingdom. In contrast the 70 weeks vision is about the Jewish people and nation. Its 'end' happened at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I sent you on a wild goose chase over this - I totally agree that Daniel isn't talking about the end of the world, just the end of history. His message is that ordinary history will come to an end and be replaced by the kingdom of God. But your analysis of the details is distinctively Christian. PiCo (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

With the Bible resources on-line now days it is not difficult to check many different translations and Hebrew-English interliner texts. BibleGateway gives one access to over 30 English translations and 50 or so translations into other languages. The BlueLetterBible links the KJV with Strongs Exhaustive Concordance and Hebrew/Greek Lexicons. Anyone who has the desire can easily learn much about any Bible text and words used in it. I believe that each individual can and should become very knowledgeable on the Bible without the need to depend upon anyone else to explain things to them. Study for yourself, don't depend upon anyone else to tell you truth. Jesus said that he would send the Spirit to teach each person all things. He DID NOT SAY go see what the priest says, go listen to the televangelist, go read the latest from Bible scholars. Read it for yourself under the guidance of the Spirit, i.e., God himself. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It is just that Misplaced Pages does not rely upon the Holy Spirit, it relies instead upon reliable sources, which are written by scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Christian interpretations

When you talk about the Christian interpretations you need to cover Historicism (which is a method used from about 200 AD to the present), Preterism and Futurism invented by Jesuit priests of the Catholic Counter Reformation against the Historicist Protestant movement (they began in the 16th century and continue to the present in Catholic circles), and Dispensationalism which came into existence in Mid-19th century and is widely held by the evangelical and fundamentalist groups. While there are some surfacial similarities between these interpretation methods, there are major differences which make them very distinct from each other. The second sentence of the "Antiquity: reinterpretation....." paragraph confusingly lumps together ideas from these disparate groups. And the 3rd paragraph too. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to find sources that analyse different forms of interpretation. The piece about preterism comes from a good source and is apparently trustworthy, but I think it seems he's only talking about the early stage, pre-medieval for sure, and perhaps even earlier than that. Do you know any encylopedia or similar article that gives an overview? PiCo (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably the best source for a history of prophetic interpretation is the 4 volume work by Froom entitled "The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers". It is certainly from the Christian perspective, but since belief in Biblical prophecy is a distinctive Christian thing what else can you expect. It is encyclopedic and very exhaustive, covering nearly every Jewish and Christian author from before Christ to the 19th century. I am certain you will wonder why you never read it before. The links to .pdf downloads of all 4 volumes are found at Prophetic Faith of our fathers.

If you have questions about Froom being accepted as a valid source read his wiki page. His page was mostly written by Taiwan boi who, as you can read on his User page, is a librarian scientist and professional editor and a WP editor since 2006, whose interest include ancient history, ancient civilization, the middle ages, religion, etc. Taiwan boi was complemented on his addition to the web page. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy

Much of the content under Seventh-Day Adventists reproduces what is already covered under the paragraph about the historical-messianic interpretation. Can someone with a good knowledge of SDA belief clean up that section to indicate only the differences to the historical-messianic interpretation already presented?--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now done this myself. Most of the information in the SDA sub-section duplicated the other sub-section. The only part that was unique was about dates offered for the Neo-Babylonian period, which are not those generally given in secular sources. Focus on SDA views of those years is out of scope of the '70 weeks prophecy', which (even in the SDA view) begins later than the Neo-Babylonian period. If attention is also to be given to SDA dates for the Neo-Babylonian period, the mainstream view also needs to be more clearly stated.

I have also changed 'Modern interpretation' to 'Christian interpretations'. The article still seems very slanted toward Christian belief, with the entire 'History of interpretation' section dealing with Christian POV, whereas Jewish interpretations are relegated to 'background' information.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The "historical-messianic interpretation" method is entirely undocumented. It needs to go. The historistical section is heavily Christian for two reasons. Christians make up the majority of those who use the method. The Jewish section has not yet been fully developed, more work needs to be done filling it out. And the method has been abandoned by the Jewish scholars in the modern era. I'll do some editing to reflect this..... --RoyBurtonson (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Different authors seem to come up with different lists of the types of interpretation. This book, The Word and the World, by Eugene Merrill and others, lists four types in its chapter on Daniel: amillenialism, postmillenialism, historical premillennialism, and dispensational premillennialism (see page 413, or do a search for one of those four phrases). Unfortunately Merrill only lists the types and doesn't explain them.

On being Christian, the fact is that only Christians regard Daniel as a prophetic book - for Jews it's one of the Writings, and they concentrate on the stories in chapters 1-6, which they interpret as moral problems (like, should Daniel have been so kind to Nebuchadnezzar, the king who destroyed the Temple). They simply ignore chapters 7-12. So there's really nothing to say about Jewish interpretation except perhaps to make that point - a single sentence. (That's medieval and modern Judaism of course - up to about 100 CE the Jews regarded Daniel as a prophetic book.) PiCo (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

About Froom, I found vol.3 in google books - he's incredibly detailed, which would make him hard to use - all trees, when we need the forest. But I think he can be used provided we screen out his Adventist agenda. PiCo (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably the most useful thing in Froom's book are his tables which show the positions of nearly every author from the 1st to the 19th centuries. The pages for the tables and in which volumes are noted in the "list of historicists...." that I just added. The tables can be found in the .pdf copes of the books that can be downloaded. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@RoyBurtonson, you restored redundant duplicated material, yet you retained the material you claimed was 'undocumented'. I have therefore restored my edit, which retains the sources from your (reverted) version but without the duplication.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

On broader consideration of the article, I have noticed that some views had been ignored/suppressed (Isaiah's reference to Cyrus as "anointed one", fall of Assyria in 609 BCE giving exactly 70 years, Hebrew punctutation of Daniel 9:25); this seems to have been done to lend greater veracity to the SDA view, but I haven't attempted to find out by whom or for how long this has been the case with the article. Further elaboration on the Hebrew text is still required, as indicated in inline comments within the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have also restored the Jewish interpretation to the Interpretation section. Though Jews do not interpret the passage as prophetic (i.e. Daniel is part of the Writings), that does not mean they do not have an interpreation of the passage at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the section about rebuilding from '535' (not consistent with secular sources) until 515 BCE, as this has no direct bearing on the SDA interpretation of the '70 weeks' prophecy. The starting point for the '70 weeks', as already indicated in the article is c. 458 BCE. Other SDA beliefs about Jeremiah's 70 years are out of scope. This also constitutes undue weight because other interpretations of the 70 years are not covered (nor should they be at this article).--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As already noted in the beginning paragraph of the historicist section, historicist reject ALL modern scholarly interpretation, therefore historicist interpretation will have different starting and ending points for the 70 weeks and many other points of disagreement with the modern scholarship present at the beginning of the article. This section is about what historicist think, not about conforming their views to modern scholarship. The vision is about BOTH the Anointed One AND Jerusalem so it is not out of scope to have a paragraph dealing with the restoration and destruction of Jerusalem. This is not undue weight simply because this article is a work in progress and this particular section is being worked on while other sections have yet to be developed. This work has not yet addressed all of your concerns, but that does not mean that everything must developed all at once. There could be many paragraphs more that could be added just for the SDA position. And some things brought up by modern scholarship, historicists consider irrelevant. Let this section develop as it will..... --RoyBurtonson (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You're intermixing the '70 weeks' with Jeremiah's '70 years'. You've restored quite a lot of inferior content, including contradictory information as previously noted. The topic doesn't interest me enough to continue dealing with your poor quality reversions, so I'm just going to stop watching the article and let it remain poorly structured.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Some extra sources

This book Mapping Modern Theology: A Thematic and Historical Introduction looks possibly useful. PiCo (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Also this one].PiCo (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation section is a mess

The Interpretation section is a mess, and I'm afraid I'm partly responsible for that. We all are. Anyway, some comments:

• Identity of the messiah and the evil ruler: Jeffro, I'm sorry but I took out that comment about Isaiah recognising Cyrus as the messiah. He did, but it's not relevant to this article - we're looking at how post 2nd century authors interpreted the "anointed one" in Daniel 9 - always, without exception, as Jesus, so far as I know. Almost all see the evil ruler as the Antichrist, although that took a few centuries to develop, but after about the 3rd century it was always the Antichrist.
• Historicist subsection: it makes a big point about believing the book of Daniel was written by Daniel or someone else in the 5th century. But absolutely all Christian interpreters believe that - it just takes a sentence to say it, not a whole subsection.
• Chronology: Interpretations of the chronology are the main thing about the prophecy, and they're much more complicated than the article currently says. Daniel doesn't make clear when his start-point is, and it's been interpreted as anything from the beginning of the Babylonian empire to Artaxerxes' commission to Nehemiah - saying it's Artaxerxes' commission of Ezra is unbalanced.
• Types of interpretation: I don't know about you, but I find all this talk of amillenialism and preteritism and so on just plain confusing.

I suggest an approach that follows a historical approach - begin with the 1st century CE (the earliest period for which there's evidence), deal very briefly with Judaism, then with primitive Christianity. hat should bring in the identification of the messiah as Jesus and the evil ruler as Antichrist. Then the rest concentrates on the chronology. That's my suggestion. (That table is just too much, by the way, tho I appreciate the thought; and I don't object to using Froom). PiCo (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, I am no longer watching this article, because the other editor (Ron whatever-his-name-is) just reverts to poor quality text, apparently with an SDA bias. I'm done here. Do with the article as you please.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Roy isn't operating in the same mental framework as you and me, he believes in the supernatural reality of prophecy. It makes it difficult for him to see what we're getting at. At the same time, I think he probably has just as much difficulty understanding us. Is this article worth putting time into? Probably not. Nor is anything else on wikipedia. PiCo (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem here, I believe, is that the viewpoint of you (PiCo and Jeffro) is that the Bible is not the word of God and there is no such thing as real prophecy, while that of myself and most Christians is that the Bible is the word of God and that prophecy is real. Obviously, these two views are mutually exclusive. I believe that PiCo is doing a commendable job putting together a comprehensive discussion of modern scholarship view of this topic. I understand what he is doing. At this time I am attempting to put down one of the Christian views (Historistical) of the text. I want work on others in the future. The thing that may irk you is that the Christian view pretty much ignores modern scholarship as irrelevant. To be comprehensive the article ought to take into account both viewpoints and present them as two distinct ways of thought without one or the other needed to comment about the truth or falseness of the other.

Just because you may not know the various interpretation methods and are confused by them, doesn't mean that they are unimportant. It just means your education is incomplete. And it illustrates the gulf that exists between modern scholarship and Christian Biblical scholarship. (Yes, I know there are some modern scholars who claim to be Christian.)

The small table I added illustrates the continuity of thought by Christian Bible scholars across a long period of time. I did not invent these understandings of prophecy. The SDAs did not invent them. They have been well established for a long time. I concur that a chronology of interpretive thought be shown. That is what I am working on. The Historicism interpretive method began before "primitive Christianity" (what a stupid label) and continues to the present. This methodology lead to the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic church did not much like being identified as the Anti-Christ so it started a new order of priesthood (Jesuit) in the 16th Century specifically to deal with the Protestants. They came up with two competing but successful interpretive methods Preterist and Futurist. Then during the 19th century Dispensationalism was developed. All of these exist in the present, held by different groups. These interpretive methods have been known and discussed for centuries among Christian scholars. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"Yes, I know there are some modern scholars who claim to be Christian." Telling and hilarious. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Scholarly interpretation in the lede

Hi there. Some of you I know and most of you I don't. If we stick to policy we can all get along and make the page better. I like to improve leads. This lead says...

'The "seventy weeks" prophecy is cited as an example of how some scholars believe apocalyptic authors of the Hellenistic age reinterpreted the prophets (in this case, Jeremiah) in the light of their own circumstances.'

This looks like valuable information, since it's a notable point of view. Can we please rework this sentence into something more direct and specific? Does someone have access to the source? Leadwind (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Respecting the Rich History of Interpretation Associated with This Prophecy

Hello everyone. I propose that those of us who contribute to this page respect the rich history of interpretation associated with this prophecy by noting/cataloging the various ways exegetes have handled it without necessarily casting judgment on those approaches. Obviously, a number of different types of people (religious and secular) have strong views as to how this prophecy should be interpreted and I think this page will continue to be mired in conflict so long as those who work on it see it as an opportunity to advance their own preferred interpretation at the expense of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNewSaadia (talk • contribs) 17:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:RNPOV and WP:ABIAS. In respect to historical events, mainstream historians make the call, this belongs to the basics of editing Misplaced Pages. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about. Anyone who is familiar with the professional literature on this subject would know that there is very little consensus among "mainstream historians" about this prophecy. Indeed, there is practically none, which is why almost everything is up for grabs here. For example, I see that you, Tgeorgescu, reverted my change to the opening words of this page so that it currently suggests that the seventy weeks prophecy is a further development (or reinterpretation) of Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy, but this is by no means the consensus of "mainstream historians"; rather, it is merely the opinion/judgment of Collins and a few others. Indeed, I can cite at least two other scholars who have recently published articles on just this subject in such mainstream journals as CBQ and JAJ that hold to a different view as to how these prophecies relate to each other. On the other hand, the change I proposed to the opening words of this page said nothing so controversial as this. TheNewSaadia (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Including religious interpretation is fine, but such interpretation should not be confused with secular academic textual history (which is what the lede currently discusses). Not everyone accepts that the material is a divine prophecy to be interpreted, but anyone can accept that the work is a textual artifact that can be examined as a historical document. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, let's discuss the lead that everyone wants to preserve.

Currently, the lead says that "the majority scholars" do not take the exilic setting of the Book of Daniel at face value. In my opinion, this sort of statement, although uncontroversial, is more appropriate to a discussion of the historical provenance of the Book of Daniel than the lead for an entry on the seventy weeks prophecy. The subject matter of this page is not the historical provenance of the Book of Daniel, but the seventy weeks prophecy (its literary characteristics, history of interpretation, and so on).

The next sentence suggests that the seventy weeks prophecy is a reinterpretation of Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy. Unfortunately, this is not obvious from the literary context in Dan 9 and is disputed in the professional literature. So, again, how does a controversial statement like this help introduce the seventy weeks prophecy to people who visit this page?

Also, I am under the impression that some of the people who closely follow this page are under the delusion that there is a determinate fact of the matter about what "mainstream historians" have concluded about this prophecy. However, as someone who is thoroughly well-versed in this literature, I can assure all of you that there is no such historical consensus about this prophecy, period. The only thing critical scholars agree on is that Dan 9:24-27 somehow speaks to the Maccabean crisis and that's it. This is why I propose that we take a more literary approach to this prophecy in this page and not get bogged down in apologetically driven rabbit trails about who is right/wrong and what is/isn't historical, etc. TheNewSaadia (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Final revert warning, go through consensus first. Anyone reverts again will be reported for violating WP:3RR -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:LEDE the lead section summarizes the content (body) of the article. So, you cannot summarily change the lead section without radically changing the whole body of the article. First work below the lead section and if those changes are to stay, then they may be summarized in the lead section. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)All Misplaced Pages does is summarize reliable sources, without elaboration or interpretation. We do not use original research. We do not care about editor's opinions, or what they've studied (unless they can cite the books they've studied, again without elaboration or interpretation). The introduction is supposed to summarize and introduce the article. The current introduction's first paragraph introduces the subject matter, the next paragraph succinctly summarizes the background section.

Interpretations beyond how secular academia places the work in history, especially religious interpretations, belong in the Interpretation section. How historians fit the work within history (textual history) is not the same thing as religious interpretation, however. I repeat, textual history is not the same as religious doctrine. You seem to have the two confused.

The material about the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks connection to Jeremiah's prophecy of seventy years is further discussed in the section Jeremiah's prophecy of seventy years and Daniel's seventy weeks of years. The lede is merely summarizing that portion of the article, which is supported by several academic sources.

If you have complaints about the words "majority of scholars," you need to demonstrate that the source does not support the statement by either showing that the text itself does not say that, or present additional reliable sources that explicitly counter that specific source. Seeing how the article's text is a rather close paraphrase of the source, the first option is not possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian, then the problem is that this whole page is misconceived. Much of what's written in the "Background" section is no less speculative than what we find in the "Interpretation" section. Indeed, much of what's written in the "Background" section heavily favors only one strand of historical-critical scholarship on this passage while completely ignoring the others that have appeared in the professional literature as well. Again, this is why I propose taking a more literary (or post-modern) approach to this passage that avoids absolute judgments of value and/or historicity. TheNewSaadia (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• B-Class Judaism articles
• Mid-importance Judaism articles
• Start-Class Seventh-day Adventist Church articles
• Mid-importance Seventh-day Adventist Church articles
• Start-Class Christianity articles
• WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church articles