The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel

quote:

---

Here are the facts regarding Alexander's Greek World Class Empire Paulk. Your argument is a whistle in the wind and contrary to world history. There was no world class empire known as the Macedonian Empire. The Greek Empire was the prophet Daniel's foreseen third empire.

---

Your link admits that Alexander WAS King of Macedon just as I said. It describes his army as Macedonian. It admits that he conquered a great Empire, It does NOT say that his Empire is never called Macedonian. Even though it's a dodgy Jewish apologetic site it doesn't even claim that Alexander's Empire and the succeeding Hellenistic states constitute Daniel's 3rd Empire.You should know better than to try to bluff me like that. Providing a link and a quote which support what I've said and don't support your claims in any way is just not going to work.Did you even think of googling for "Macedonian Empire" ?If you did you would find plenty of links proving that Alexander's Empire IS called the Macedonian Empire. Here are some of the better examples from the first page of results: Wikipediahistory ofmacedonia.orgOr this work found on google booksearch. The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare Under Philip II and Alexander the Great 359-323 B.C. By James R. AshleyFrom the blurb Now, are you ready to deal with Daniel 8, which shows that the final Empire of Daniel's prophecies is Greek ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Paul, you fail to refute my link that Alexander, the Macedonian's empire was the Greek Empire and when the History books call his empire Greek they are correct.

---

In case you didn't notice I did not try to refute a completely irrelevant contention that I don't even disagree with. If you actually fllow this thread I've used the term "Greek Empire" to refer to Alexander's Empire frequently.Shall I make the point that 70 * 7 is 490 and boast when you "fail to refute" it ?

quote:

---

You can call it Macedonian, but the vast majority of historians consider it to be the Greek Empire and that the alleged Macedonian empire was not a world class empire.

---

LOTS of people call it Macedonian. In fact I've seen it called more often Macedonian than Greek. And given that we're talking about different names for the same empire just what are you trying to prove when you say that the Macedonian Empire wasn't "world class" ?

quote:

---

Alexander did not conquer the civilized world until his empire included all of Greece.

---

Which is irrelevant since the Macedonian Empire is ALL of Alexander's Empire.

quote:

---

It was the Greek empire which was Daniel's 3rd empire which was divided into four segments after his death.

---

The 3rd Empire of the statue isn't divided. The 4th Empire is. That is one of the lines of evidence identifying the 4th Empire as the Greek Empire.So if you've quite finished raising foolish and erroneous quibbles can we discuss the evidence of Daniel 8 ?

quote:

---

But Alexander's empire did not become world class until he conquered the whole world.

---

Which means that it WAS "world class"

quote:

---

Macedonia was considered part of Greece, had Greek dialect language, Greek gods and Greek culture.

---

Which doesn't mean that it WASN'T Macedonian.Given the fact that Alexander's Empire IS referred to as Macedonian, and you have accepted that Alexander DID conquer enough for his Empire to be considered "world class" both of your arguments have failed.Hopefully we can forget this silliness and get on with examining what Daniel actually says.

quote:

---

This is why one must apply all the info from all of the visions of Daniel to understand the prophecy of Daniel and the empires.

---

Including Daniel 8. Which indicates that the Hellenistic kingdoms will still be around in the End Times.

quote:

---

Go to Daniel 7 where the same empires of Daniels image are depicted as beasts. The third beast is a leopard which had on it's back four wings and it had four heads. This is the only mention of one empire having the factor of four in all of his visions. The fourth beast has the factor of ten which is 10 kings, being the ten toes of the first vistion and the 10 horns of the last. The 4th empire of Daniel has the division of 10 whereas the 3rd has the division of 4.

---

All you have on the 3rd beast is the number 4. There is no mention of any division.The 4th beast has a "little horn". There is a "little horn" in Daniel 8, too. And that "little horn" is a Hellenistic monarch who can be identified as the Seleucid Antichus IV Epiphanes. A "little horn" is rather more specific than the number 4, so that, added to the fact that Daniel 8 is about the End Times is a good indication that they are the same.And it gets better. Antichus IV was the 8th Seleucid monarch - and a usurper. An official, Heliodorus attempted to seize the throne - murdering the king, Antiochus' brother, Antiochus made his move and took the throne for himself pushing aside the dead king's two sons. One was a hostage in Rome the other, still a child was murdered. Add in the two sons and the usurper Heliodorus to the 7 previous monarchs and we get 10 - with 3 "uprooted" to allow Antiochus to take the throne.So the "little horn" is Antiochus - and the 4th Beast is Greek.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

here are some facts relative to the Greek/Macedonian argument as to whether Daniel's third empire of Alexander the Great was an alleged Macedonian empire.

---

This relates to something I already knew of. The Greeks object to the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on the grounds that the ancient Macedonians were "Greek".The Greeks claim that the the ancient Macedonians are the real Macedonians, and the modern republic has no right to the name.Therefore it INSISTS that Alexander and his people WERE Macedonian. Perhaps you would like to explain how you come to the conclusion that Alexander's Empire WASN'T Macedonian from that.

quote:

---

The 'first' Messiah?? What, how many do you think there were?

---

That's "messiah" with a lower-case 'm'. There are two in the prophecy and rather more in history. Every High Priest and every properly installed king of Israel or Judah (where "proper" refers to the requirements of the Hebrew religion).

quote:

---

And he was a heathen king to boot? Very funny. Get serious

---

The Book of Isaiah says so (Isaiah 45:1). Do you claim to know better than the Bible ?

quote:

---

Now, there was so many weeks for the wall, and etc to be built. I think it was 7, or 49 years

---

No, that's to when the first Messiah appears.

quote:

---

Then we have 62 weeks till the Messiah, and also the destruction of the city. Forget the last week for now. So, try to fit your wanna be Messiahs into that!!

---

I did. You're the one who has to invent gaps.

quote:

---

As for some guy that did stop the sacrifice, there we get into an area where history blends with the future, and the question is where does the one stop, and the ultimate fulfillment start?!!

---

THere isn't anything about OUR future in there. The 490 years doesn't even get to 70 AD ! (Even choosing the latest possible start date !)

quote:

---

The raw fact that the temple and city were destroyed AFTER Messsiah was cut off, and that the kingdoms of this world were all named in advance,

---

Rome isn't named. None of the later Kingdoms that you believe Daniel is about are named. Want to explain why that is ? And you can't show that even one of those that was named, was named in advance.

quote:

---

Two? Where are they? Must have missed that.

---

They're both there. One comes after the first seven weeks. One is cut off after the sixty-two weeks.

quote:

---

Right, I think he was a good guy too. Why else would he get named long long before he was born by scripture!!?

---

But you still think it's ridiculous to cal him a messiah even though Daniel does so.
(And Isaiah 45 is another "prophecy" written after the fact.)

quote:

---

The wall and etc was to be built again, that is a division point. Messiah comes, and city destroyed etc, another one. Each is marked out, for example, the 62 weeks, is it not? Why do you think that is, just to make your replies silly??

---

Those are points where somethign happens. Not gaps. Even you don't beleive that there is a gap of some arbitrary number of years between the first seven weeks and the following sixty-two. No, you boast that it works out "exactly" with NO gap at all. But when it comes to the last week - you insist of putting in a gap of coming up for 2000 years - with no justification form the text.

quote:

---

Of course there is, unless you think everlasting righteouness is here now??

---

Of course there isn't - unless you think it's less than 490 years since whichever start date you choose.The fact that "everalasting righteousness" is NOT here proves that the prophecy failed. [quote] Of course there is, unless you think everlasting righteouness is here now??Of course there is, unless you think everlasting righteouness is here now??

quote:

---

The kingdom to follow the kindoms NAMED by no less than the arcangel of God himself, could not be named, cause it won't have the same name. Get it?? But it is described in details that look more like history than prophesy!!

---

I get it. You're desperately making excuses. The name ROme isn't mentioned because God isn't able to use that name ? Why not ?And the "details" certainly aren't that good a prediction of Rome.

quote:

---

Srarman, now you see why over the years I've engaged in few prophecy debates with folks who will never admit to one regardless of the evidence.

---

Starman is getting hammered for the same reasons you do. He doesn't know what the Bible says. He can't be bothered to do proper reaearch. He can't even be bothered to understand the arguments he's trying to respond to.The seventy weeks are a perfect example. The EVIDENCE says that the prophecy isn't about Jesus and that in the end the prophecy failed.Even if you choose the start date you want, even if you rig the calculation by inventing a 360 day year the events after the messsiah is cut off don't happen in the seven years left of the prophecy.Some of them still haven't happened, nearly 2000 years later.The evidence even says that the events of the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes are a far better fit for the predictions of that final "week".But you reject all that evidence.You won't even discuss Daniel 8, preferring to go off on a silly tangent trying to attack my perfectly correct use of the term "Macedonian Empire" to describe Alexander's Empire. Now that's a good example of "Bibliophobia".

quote:

---

Where is the one after the 49 years? Cyrus??? That is absurd, if that is the claim. Being anointed for some job does not make one the Saviour.

---

I didn't say anything abvout him being a "Saviour". I said that he was a messiah. Just as Isiah 45:1 says that he was a messiah.

quote:

---

Unsupported assertions! Nonsense as well. Prove it.

---

You're the one that claims that it was a prediction. You prove that.

quote:

---

Gaps?? There are no gaps, just times within the given prophesy time where stuff happens. You seem quite confused. Maybe it is good you have a fresh look at what actually is going on here.

---

Okay. If there are no gaps then you have only 490 years from the start date for the entire prophecy. And only 7 years after the (second) messiah is "cut off" for Jerusalem to be stormed, a peace deal lasting a few years to be agreed, the sacrifices to be forbidden in the Temple and the abomination to be set up there.Let's see how you work that.

quote:

---

The everlasting righteousness is the end result, not something we find mid span in the allotted time for the prophesy.

---

Which is what I said. It appears at the end of the prophecy - 490 years after the start date. And since it is far more than 490 years since any of the possible start dates, the prophecy failed. Remmber you said that there were no gaps so 490 years is all you've got.

quote:

---

First we have certain things, like Messiah being killed, the city destroyed, and etc. The final week, the big event, the long foretold latter days, the final scene is yet to be fulfilled. It is still prophesy, rather than history!!! Looking at history, we can be certain that Gabriel was bang on, however, the final 7 years can be considered as good as a done deal, that has not happened yet.

---

Unless you are proposing a gap how can it be that the last 7 years of the 490 years haven't happened yet ? Is your start date some time after 1500 AD ?

quote:

---

They sure are, Rome's taxation, iron rule, and etc are fantastic. The name Rome, or Roman empire, I surmise will not be the final name of the kingdoms, that came from that empire, and are a final manifestation of it. Therefore, do you really think an archangel would use the name of only the first bit of the old part of the kingdom???

---

Why not mention the name Rome in the bits that supposedly predict Rome. (Not that you have any perfect details).And can you explain why these supposed "kingdoms" could possibly be xonsidered the "final form" of the Roman Empire, given that the last remnant of that Empire was destroyed in the 15th Century ?

quote:

---

Absolute bunk. No everlasting righteousness was brought in by that terd. He was a mere forerunner, also ran, shadow of the final king, that will be the devil in the flesh, by direct possession.

---

Regardless of your opinion, Antichus DID storm the city. Antiochus DID ban Jewish sacrifices. And Antiochus DID set up what Jews call "the abomination that causes desolation".None of those happened in the seven years after Jesus died.So it's not bunk. It's a fact.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Oh, is that what you said? OK. So?? Was there supposed to be a point? I am sorry, but discussing some Persian king as a Messiah is a pathetic joke. You OK with that??

---

OK, you say that Isaiah 45:1 is too ridiculous to believe.But how are you going to show that the author of Daniel didn't believe it ?

quote:

---

Oh, so now Gabriel and Daniel were not predicting anything. OK. What were they doing, bowling??

---

This is the first time I've seen it said that Gabriel or Daniel predicted the name "Cyrus" long before he was born. Reference please.

quote:

---

So you accept that weeks are years now? OK. That is a start.

---

Since that has been assumed from the very beginning of this discussion, the only significance is that it has taken you this long to notice.

quote:

---

The total prophesy covers 490 years, but the final period was not for many days. This is news? The gap there is not IN the prophesy, but in the time between Messiah being cut off, and etc, and the final week, or seven years. Of course

---

So in other words, you DID invent a gap. Which is not mentioned or even hinted at in the prophecy. Can you explain why exactly you tried to deny this ?

quote:

---

490 years, NOT after the start of the prophesy, but in the 70 weeks of the prophesy. If what you men by a gap is some time between one thing and another in the prophesy, yes, there is a time gap, within the 70 weeks. Of course.

​

Ask the angel!

​

Dan 10:14 - Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.

---

The "latter days" supposedly being 490 years in the future according to Daniel 9. During the Hellenistic period according to Daniel 8.In other words this quote offers no reason to invent a gap in the 590 years.

quote:

---

On the contrary, of course Cyrus was anointed for a job.

---

So he WAS a messiah.

quote:

---

Nothing to do with saving all men from a state of sin, of course. If you think Daniel thought that Cyrus was Jesus, it is you that need to pony up.

---

I never said anything about any of that.

quote:

---

It was not those guys that predicted that.

---

Then you shouldn't have said that they did.

quote:

---

" Isa :44 :28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid."

​

Hey, even the job this guy had is outlined!!! Fits right in with the seventy week prophesy. No accident, that. Give up yet????

---

The fact that you happen to come up with more evidence supporting my position is hardly a reason to change it !But to prove that that verse is a prediction, written long before Cyrus was born, all you have to do is to prove that that it was written long before Cyrus was born.

quote:

---

What part of the obvious you admit takes some time to get down to. Don't blame me!!!?

---

That sentence doesn't make sense. Anyway, you only just noticed something that has been obvious since the beginning - that can't be anyone else's fault.

quote:

---

Because I was not sure if you meant a supposed gap within the 70 week prophesy, or merely a gap in the time between some portions of it being fulfilled. Don't blame others for your lack of clarity.

---

Since I said that it WASN'T in the text of the prophecy your confusion would seem to be entirely your fault. You really need to learn to pay attention.

quote:

---

No. The prophesy was not for many days. As for your 590 years, where did you pull that out of? Or need we ask!!!?

---

The 590 is a typo for 490.And the angel clearly states that the "latter days" - the END of the prophecy - is not for many days. 490 years seesm to be more than enough. No reason to invent a gap.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, being gifted for a task does not make one the Saviour. This is news??

---

The question is not whether he was the Saviour. The question is whether he was a messiah. Isaiah 45:1 says he was. You agreed. Are you going back on that, or just raising completely irrelevant objections ?

quote:

---

Say what? Where? When? Why? How? Are you really reduced to this spam?? Good. It's about time.

---

We were talking about your assertion that Cyrus was predicted long before his birth and you introduced Gsabriel and Daniel/ BUt it gets worse, becaue you now try AGAIN to claim that Daniel predicted Cyrus "long before" he was born.

quote:

---

So you have resorted to the crack of retreat, and the demonstrated inability to challenge the dating of Daniel. OK. You know, in some places, the bible does say that it was in the first, or fourth, or some such year of the reign of certain kings. I should doubt this record, because.....???? You no likey?? Get serious.

---

You mean that I "resort" to beleiving Biblical scholars instead of you.

quote:

---

Except for those that missed it! Work on that.

---

So far as I can tell you were the only one who missed it.
Certainly you're the only one to express any surprise.

quote:

---

You not noticing, or ignoring what is in the text is not the golden rule here. The different elements of the prophesy are clear.

---

This is completely irrelevant to the fact that I stated that the gaps were not in the actual text of the prophecy and therefore if you were confused it was your fault for not reading. And since the gaps are clearly NOT there and you admit it there is no disagreement over that aspect.

quote:

---

Well, I agree, so why claim there is one??

---

I don't know. Why DO you claim there is one ?

quote:

---

Once an end to transgressions, and everlasting righteousness surfaces, we can clue in that the prophesy is fulfilled

---

So what you are saying is that the 490 years are a mistake. It's just about something that will happen sometime in the future and any claims of "exact" predictions - including the ones you made - are nonsense.

quote:

---

Meanwhile, I see a gap in that goal!! Obviously. The angel, and God, and Daniel were right. Get with the plan.

---

By which you mean that obviously Daniel was wrong to say that it would take 490 years and all the events that Daniel thought would happen in the last seven are spread out over a much larger period of time.That's the interesting thing about your sort of fundamentalists. You all assume that you know better than God.

quote:

---

Tell us the difference in your mind, then. What does a Messiah do, if not save??

---

That's not my problem. It matters not to me whether there is a difference or not. Isaiah 45:1 declares that Cyrus is a messiah. Do you agree with Isaiah 45:1 or not ? Make your mind up.

quote:

---

Right, and so?? Have you some reason to dispute the accepted bible dates?? Let us in on it?? Or are you just BSing??

---

So now you insist that you did say that Daniel and Cyrus predicted Cyrus long before he was born. It's up to you to support it. Produce the prophecy and the date that you say that it was written.

quote:

---

So? What about the obvious do you have a problem with??

---

The obvious fact that you keep shifting and changing your position and then denying it.So where is this prophecy that was "obviously" written by Daniel long before Cyrus was born ?

quote:

---

Which ones?

---

As it turns out, the majority of mainstream scholars. Louis F. Hartmann is one.

quote:

---

Missed WHAT, precisely??? Do tell?

---

Since you've forgotten I will remind you. The fact that I have been talking about Daniel's "weeks" (literally "sevens") as periods of seven years all through this thread.

quote:

---

So, tell us how all that was fulfilled!!!? I think you have a huge gap somewhere.

---

I've already offered my explanation. And it wasn't ALL fulfilled. THe prophecy failed, remember.

quote:

---

The times are great. Like the times from the decree till the Messiah. Do you have a point??

---

Then we agree that your invented gap in the timeline is a deliberate twisting of the Bible.Or maybe you're just not being honest about your own position. Again.

quote:

---

So you believe in God?? And you say that His book was wrong???? Or, what, that He had no book??? What, is He dead?

---

No, I don't. But you do. And that is all my point needs.

quote:

---

1. Your problem is that this text does not say Cyrus was the messiah. The word is anoint. He was consecrated/anointed by God for a purpose which was to advance his purpose as king for God's program.

---

No, your problem is that you don't know what you are talking about. "Anointed one" = "messiah" It's the same word. Check a concordance if you don't believe me.

quote:

---

2. When you corroborate all of the prophetic messianic texts regarding God's messiah who is to be messianic king of the Jews ...

---

...you're talking about a different messiah. One that isn't mentioned in Daniel

quote:

---

3. Definition, Merriam Webster; anoint:

---

Irrelevant. Well, except to what it means to be a messiah.

quote:

---

Not the silly and twisted rendition that apparently dances in your head, no. Of course not. Trying to make a God of some little also ran of history is absurd.
Look at the rest of the bible if you doubt that. For example, was this nice king born in Bethlehem? Was his hands and feet pierced? Did he defeat death, and rise again? Etc..? Of course not. Intellectual twot.

---

I'm not the one with a "silly and twisted version". I'm just going with what the text says. Isaiah 45:1 describes Cyrus as a messiah. And that is ALL that I am saying about that verse.All the rest of it comes from your imagination. Your "twisted rendition" is entirely your invention.

quote:

---

I said and meant that Cyrus was predicted long before birth. Not by Daniel, I don't think I said that. You seem to be reading stuff in.

---

You said it, you denied it, you said it again. And now you deny it again.If you don't take care over what you say, it's your problem.Now do you intend to prove that Cyrus was predicted "long before" his birth as you claimed ?

quote:

---

Who says Daniel was the one that prophesied anything about the name of that king??

---

YOU did.

quote:

---

Talk about grasping at straws. Can't blame you, you have no possible case.

---

I'm just asking you to back up your claims. Its not my fault if you are desperately clutching at straws and say silly things.

quote:

---

Tell us the premise for the claim. What so called 'mainstream' people believe isn't really important.

---

I would say that the opinion of the majority of mainstream scholars in any discipline DOES matter. Especially for those of us who aren't in a good position to directly examine the evidence.Two line of evidence are history -the Book of Daniel is very poor on the time it was supposedly written. e.g. Nabonidus is not even mentioned, yet the apparently fictional "Darus the Mede" is.

quote:

---

I think if you put it on the table we can all have a chuckle. Don't think you can get away with appeal to popularity, and some unsupported claims here.

---

I'm having a chuckle right now. You think that your unsupported claims will be accepted.

quote:

---

No, I don't remember. What happened, your invented messiah came along and ate it with curds and whey??

---

The second messiah just got "cut off and had nothing". Like the book says. But yes, Antiochus stormed the city. Antiochus banned the sacrifice. Antiochus set up the "abomination that causes desolation".

quote:

---

There was a certain length of time given, to wrap up history for the people of Daniel.

---

And that time was 490 years.

quote:

---

It came in segments, if you bothered to read it at all. So many weeks till Messiah, etc.

---

I know , you have to try to imply that I haven't read it because you're desperate.

quote:

---

You seem to feel that we need to tack the last week of their history on there, soon as Messiah gets cut off. No.

---

You don't feel any need to insert a gap between the first two portions. In fact you boast about how exactly it works out (after you've fiddled the figures). And in fact there is nothing to suggest any gap between any of the divisions.

quote:

---

There are still things that need to happen, as any look at the rest of the book, and bible would tell even a casual looker.

---

The casual looker who doesn't know the relevant history, might wrongly think so. Someone better informed would not.

quote:

---

any things, that, till there completion, as the arcangel plainly said, will not be for many days!!

​

Take it from Gabe.

​

Dan 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

---

As I have shown Daniel 8 is clearly talking of events in the Hellenistic period. That is "many days" from the supposed writing of Daniel in itself. So, once more, you are trying to twist the Bible.

quote:

---

Notice that the kingdoms of this world are not yet taken over by Messiah? That alone should clue you in, that the vision is still a work in progress. It all comes in the times appointed.

---

It should clue you in to the fact that the prophecy failed. Obviously the only reason for inventing a gap is as an excuse to try to avoid that fact. If you had any justification from the actual text you would have produced it by now.

quote:

---

So you do not believe in God, but I do, and that is all you think you need to have some point??? OK. Strange.

---

As usual you fail to understand the obvious. You beleive that the Bible is the word of God in a fairly literal sense. You believe that the Bible is wrong and you know better (just look at your condemnations of Isaiah 45:1). THerefore you beleive that you know better than God.