There is suppposed to be a seven-year treaty in Daniel 9:27
"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."
As you can see there is no mention of a review after 3 1/2 years, and of course there is no way that the U.N. would try to stop even animal sacrifice let alone grain offerings.
In fact the Daniel "prophecies" are mainly about events of the 2nd Century - the "King of the North" is the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes who conquered Judah and did indeed stop the sacrifices in the Temple.
This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-03-2005 04:16 AM
Your comments don't really address my point that the events that we can tell are coming do not really match the prophecies - and that those prophecies referred to events that happened more than 100 years before Jesus was born.
Oh it's quite simple. When the end of the world failed to happen according to schedule the prophecies were just reinterpreted - except that you can still see that the author of Daniel was really referring to Antichus IV Epihanes. I think you'll find that there was acovenant in place, at the time, too.
Jesus was wrong. Daniel's abomination was Antiochus IV Epiphanes defilement of the Temple.
The Temple is NOT ready to be rebuilt - there are formidable oppbstacles still to be dealt with. The EU is nothing like Daniel's Empires (for a start it wasn't founded by on of Alexander's successors !) and I've no idea what "veri chip" you meaen or how it's supposed to relate to the Bible.
I want to agree with the sentiment that you should read ther Bible. I also want to say that unlike the other people who have said it, I really mean it.
Buzsaw ceratinly does not. That's why he's retreated to refusing to cite the Bible verses that he claims support his views. Because he knows that if he does so they will be read and the truth will be uncovered.
OK, it requires some discussion of Daniel, so we'll start with an easy bit.
Daniel 8 is one of the clearest prophecies in Daniel. It refers to the growth of the Persian Empire (8:3-4, 8:20) , Alexander's conquest and the division of his empire (8:5-8, 8:21-22). It goes on to point to a ruler who will come from one of the successor states who will attack Judah, conquer it, ban the sacrifice and set up the "transgression which causes horror" (as the NASB translates it). (8:9-14).
8:17 and 8:19 state that these prophecies refer to the "time of the end".
Antiochus IV Epiphanes fits the description. But the last of the Successors states - Ptolomaic Egypt fell to Rome in 30 BC. Nobody later could possibly fulfill the prophecy.
quote: It would be off topic to document most of them, but a number Daniel's prophecies either simply did not happen or could not have happened contemporaneous to when they were written.
As per topic, for example, the "end of sins" and "reconcilliation of iniquity" of Daniel 9:24 did not happen until the vicarious shed blood of Jesus which scripture says "cleanses all sin" I John 1:7.
According to the NT Jesus is the only one who makes for "everlasting righteousness" prophesied in the same verse.
Yes, Daniel's prophecies did fail in some respects. The seventy week prophey in particular is a bit of a mess since the times don't seem to work out (although clearly the unknown author intended the end to fall in his own time) - and doesn't really work with the various other interpretations that Christians have proposed either (they have to ignore the 70th week or assert that it is entirely separate from the 69 - for which they can give no good reason).
It's just like the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their predictions failed so they keep "reinterpreting" them. With the "1914 generation" interpretation fading I wonder what they're going to come up with next ?
There are Christians and Christians. Not all think dogmatically and many would agree wih much I've said. I was raised a Christian but I've had absolutely no experience of Jesus at all. Not ever. And I see no reason to beeive that Christian's experneices of Jesus are fundamentally different from the religious experiences of Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims - or any others.
On the other hand your interpretations of prophecy have no real basis in the Bible or even your experiences. The EU has ten states - if you only count ten - is hardly much of a fulfilment. You need to match the other points in the prophecy. Where are the three horns that are supposed to be uprooted ? Is there really much chance that the Temple will be rebuilt and running again in a mere three years - when it hasn' started yet and there's no sign of an imminent start either ? How can the sacrifice be stopped by the end of 2011 if it hasn't been restarted ?
I'll delay a discussion of Grant Jeffrey's calculations until you explain them better. Which 70 weeks start in 606 BC. Why there's a remaining 360 weeks - and why only those are multiplied by 7.
He's also wrong about the "exact day". I've seen similar calculations. They require fiddling the start date. Inventing a ficitonal 360-day "prophetic year" (there's no such thing in the Bible). Ignoring the fact that the 70'th week doesn't fit. Ignoring the fact that the author of Daniel intends his prophecies to refer to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and that the events of that time fit the prophecy better. Needless to say I'm not impressed.
quote: The 69 weeks of years do precisely work out if you do the math on them. If you cannot agree to that, please show why you think they don't.
The abolition of the Sacrifice occurred in 168 BC. That is the middle of the 70th week. The start point must therefore be about 655 BC. That's way too early. You did actually read my post where I pointed out that the events "predicted" referred to Antichus IV Epiphanes ?
(And even in the erroneous Christian interpretations we don't know which year Jesus died in so any claim that the numbers work out exactly is exaggerating.)
quote: It's the 70th week only that raises the most controversy. A 7th Day Adventist prophecy teacher on Sky Angel TV (Dominion Broadcasting) taught that that last week happened contemporaneous to Jesus's baptism and ministry
That doesn't seem to solve anything. You still don't have a "Prnce of the People who is to come" attacking Jerusalem. You don't have the sacrifice being banned. You don't have an "abomination which causes desolation". All these things have matches in Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
quote: I'm not convinced as to which yet but am fully convinced that the 69 come out in such a manner that a bonafide fulfilled prophecy is historical.
So basically you don't know which of two years the end of the 69th week refers to. You don't know - and can't know - when either of those two years was. You don't even know - and can't know - which year the original author intended for the start point. You have to throw out andreject the interpretation which best ifts the prediction and best fits into the context of Daniel. So I'd say that your conviction is on pretty shaky ground.
He's got another problem. The 490 years start from the decree which allowed rebuilding to begin. (Daniel 9:25).
If he equates the end of the sacrifices and the Abomination to Jesus death (and it's hard to see how the Abomination fits) he's still got the end of the 70 weeks occurring 3 1/2 years after that. What event does that correspond to ?
The interpretation of the seventy weeks prophecy in Daniel 9 as referring to Antiochus IV Epiphanes is: 1) Consistent with the other prophecies in Daniel 2) A good fit to the historicl events.
Neither of these are true for readings that have Chapter 9 talking about events a couple of hundred years later.
Now I can only guess why the dates don't add up - but all everyone else can do is guess, too. I'd rather stick with the relatively solid evidence we have than rely on someone elses speculations.
I also don't see why we can place much weight on the opinions of Jews AFTER the prophecies failed. Why should I trust them any more than the Jehovah's Witnessess attempts to deal with their failed prophecies ? We know that people who have an emotional investment in prophecies do invent reasons to deny the failures. We have reason to beleive that Daniel was popular around the time of the Maccabean revolt (we know it was popular not too long after that time). We know that Jews even now are waiting for the Messiah but it's been a lot longer than 490 years since any possible candidate for Daniel's decree. So it looks pretty clear to me that the opinions of people who believed in the prophecies aren't going to tell us anything useful on their own.
For you information the 430 years is from Ezekiel 4. It is NOT describd as referrign to years of punishment (if it predicts anything it's more likely to be the duration of the siege of Jerusalem which the chapter predicts). Leviticus 26:8 doesn't say that God will multiply the underved time by seven - rather it suggests that the punishment will be repeated, only seven times worse. And it's pretty dubious to maintain that the punishment continued uninterruped from the Babylonan captivity up to the formation of modern Israel. If the punishment is exile, for instance, then the start point for the repeated punishment should be no earlier than 70 AD.
In other words you have to look at the bible, and consider what is said. You can't trust the people who claim prophecy fulfilment. They're almost always twisting something, or leaving out bits that don't fit - usually both.
quote: At the time John wrote the book of Revelation, Domitian, the sixth Caesar, was in power. Before the reign of Domitian, there had reigned five Caesars who had died unnatural deaths (are fallen) through murder or suicide. The first four of these (in chronological order) were Julius Caesar, Tiberius Caesar, Caligula, and Claudius Caesar. Physically, the Antichrist will rise to power suddenly as the seventh Caesar over a revived Roman Empire.
Well lets see if you can actually get the simple things right.
What is your criterion for being a Caesar ? If it's family ties then Domitian shouldn't count. If it's being Emperor then Julius Caesar shouldn't count - and Otho, Galba and Vitellus should.
And why don't you count any "Caesars" after Domitian, apart from your hypothetical "seventh"? If Domitian counts and your "seventh" counts then why not Commodus ? Or Caracalla ? Or Elagabalus ?