The Gap (Daniel 11:33-35)

[Invicta]

70 weeks =

7 weeks from Cyrus' decree till the 31st year of Darius, aka Artaxerxes, 62 weeks till the baptism of Jesus. The details of that week is filled in at Dan.11. I week from His Baptism Jesus ministered to the Jews. In the midst of the week, he was cut off, but continued his ministry to the Jews through the apostles. The 70th week ended with the deah of Stephen, the conversion of Cornelius and of Paul. 70 weeks all accounted for.

[Brother Rick]

70 weeks =

7 weeks from Cyrus' decree till the 31st year of Darius, aka Artaxerxes, 62 weeks till the baptism of Jesus. The details of that week is filled in at Dan.11. I week from His Baptism Jesus ministered to the Jews. In the midst of the week, he was cut off, but continued his ministry to the Jews through the apostles. The 70th week ended with the deah of Stephen, the conversion of Cornelius and of Paul. 70 weeks all accounted for.

Riiiiiiight..... unless you actually read the text. Keep telling yourself that, brother.

[John81]

Riiiiiiight..... unless you actually read the text. Keep telling yourself that, brother.

This isn't helpful at all. At least a timeline was put forth. If you disagree could you show why you believe this is wrong and how you think the timeline is to look? Otherwise it's really impossible to compare and contrast in order to discern the truth.

[Steve Schwenke]

This isn't helpful at all. At least a timeline was put forth. If you disagree could you show why you believe this is wrong and how you think the timeline is to look? Otherwise it's really impossible to compare and contrast in order to discern the truth.

Rick did give a very thorough timeline earlier in the conversation....but it was dismissed as "imaginative interpretation." Of course, Rick dealt with every word in the text.....

On the history stuff:
You are still appealing to men, and you are still appealing to the "winners" said about the "losers."
Some people think Hyles was "nutty." So what?
Some people think Ruckman is "nutty." so what?
I think Calvin was "nutty" along with Augustine and Origen. so what?
When it comes to man condemning other men, I get very suspicious, because I know how "the brethren" get. They get jealous over the dumbest things. If Preacher A didn't think of an idea that Preacher B started preaching on, then Preacher A automatically condemns Preacher B for one simple reason - competition. Preacher A is too proud to admit that he might be wrong, and Preacher A could never be humble enough to admit that God might use another man to fill in any "gaps" (haha!) in his ministry!

So I could really care less about what Spurgeon thought about Darby. And I could really care less about your version of history.
This is why debates about "the historical record" are meaningless because all we end up doing is put our History collections up against each other. I have been actively involved in the ministry for 22 years now, and have been reading all the way through. I have read quite a bit of "church" history. I am well versed in your version of it.
But I also have substantial evidence that most "historians" omit because they HATE THE SOURCE. It has nothing to do with accuracy, or accidental oversight. The fact is that they hate the Baptists, and they think that the big-shot muckity-muck theologians are the be-all/end-all of Christian theology.
To which I say - "BUNK!"

So the "historical argument" gets you nowhere with me. I am not intimidated by that "guilty-by-association" tactic. I have ample evidence on my side. It is not worth our time to debate all this historical nonsense because it is far too subjective, and can be manipulated too easily.

Rick has done a masterful job of defending our position. And, as always, you guys just keep ignoring plain, direct, clear statements, and then putting passages together that don't belong together (i.e. NOT "rightly" dividing!). And, as usual, when you guys get cornered, you try to change the subject to get us off track!

Nice job Rick!

[anime4christ]

The OP claims that a colon means a gap - 2,000 years & counting.

I can claim that a comma separates the end of sacrifices from the abomination.

Sorry, Ian, only dispensationalists are alowed to do that. We are to interpret the Bible as we read it. No natural gaps, like between Isaac's birth and his birthday party when he was done being nursed. Those happened several seconds apart because you can read the passage in several seconds. However, in the dispensational scheme of things, Isaac's celebration may have been several thousand years after his birth. ;)

[Covenanter]

Sorry, Ian, only dispensationalists are allowed to do that. We are to interpret the Bible as we read it.

Actually, WE have to read the Bible as THEY interpret it. But I prefer to read the Bible in its context, & see what God says before I interpret. If interpretation is necessary, we need clear Scriptural guidelines.

[John81]

Rick did give a very thorough timeline earlier in the conversation....but it was dismissed as "imaginative interpretation." Of course, Rick dealt with every word in the text.....

On the history stuff:
You are still appealing to men, and you are still appealing to the "winners" said about the "losers."
Some people think Hyles was "nutty." So what?
Some people think Ruckman is "nutty." so what?
I think Calvin was "nutty" along with Augustine and Origen. so what?
When it comes to man condemning other men, I get very suspicious, because I know how "the brethren" get. They get jealous over the dumbest things. If Preacher A didn't think of an idea that Preacher B started preaching on, then Preacher A automatically condemns Preacher B for one simple reason - competition. Preacher A is too proud to admit that he might be wrong, and Preacher A could never be humble enough to admit that God might use another man to fill in any "gaps" (haha!) in his ministry!

So I could really care less about what Spurgeon thought about Darby. And I could really care less about your version of history.
This is why debates about "the historical record" are meaningless because all we end up doing is put our History collections up against each other. I have been actively involved in the ministry for 22 years now, and have been reading all the way through. I have read quite a bit of "church" history. I am well versed in your version of it.
But I also have substantial evidence that most "historians" omit because they HATE THE SOURCE. It has nothing to do with accuracy, or accidental oversight. The fact is that they hate the Baptists, and they think that the big-shot muckity-muck theologians are the be-all/end-all of Christian theology.
To which I say - "BUNK!"

So the "historical argument" gets you nowhere with me. I am not intimidated by that "guilty-by-association" tactic. I have ample evidence on my side. It is not worth our time to debate all this historical nonsense because it is far too subjective, and can be manipulated too easily.

Rick has done a masterful job of defending our position. And, as always, you guys just keep ignoring plain, direct, clear statements, and then putting passages together that don't belong together (i.e. NOT "rightly" dividing!). And, as usual, when you guys get cornered, you try to change the subject to get us off track!

Nice job Rick!

There is no "my history" or "their history" and I don't recall bringing that up. You brought up the comments of men and complained they were not Baptist. What I pointed out was a well respected Baptist at the very time Darby began his dispensationalism spoke out against this at the time. That's not a matter of history, it's a matter of what Spurgeon said, wrote and preached. Spurgeon was in a position to know new teaching in his time and well versed enough in Scripture to comment upon what others were preaching and teaching in his day.

By your idea that no men of God are worth listening to, we should not bother to read the sermons or biographies of any of the great men of God. As far as that goes, why bother listening to what any man has to say today, which would mean there would be no point in having preachers, Sunday services, message boards or even friendships.

The fact is, men of God do have something to say and we are commanded by Scripture to listen and learn from them just as we are commanded to help others in the same way.

For some reason you seem to take the discussion here very personal. You become overly defensive when someone asks a question or puts forth an alternate idea rather than simply engaging in discussion, learning, teaching.

I don't know if Invicta's timeline is correct or not but it was put forth in an easy to follow manner. Rick's a grown man, one I consider a friend, and doesn't need you to try and defend him from what you wrongly perceive to be attacks. For the most part Rick is very good about trying to answer sincere questions in an understandable manner.

If you are unable to put forth a concise timeline to compare with the other one, that's fine, but there is no need to launch attacks, act offended or become defensive.

No offense intended, but you seem more intent upon proving you are right than in trying to teach anyone what Scripture says. You also seem intent upon seeing anyone who doesn't agree with you or doesn't even know your view as being "one of them" rather than accepting the fact that not everyone is "us" or "them", but some are those who have not yet come to a conclusion and are earnestly seeking answers.

Rick, unless he allows his emotions to post, at least tries to provide helpful teaching towards understanding his point and I truly commend such posts.

As of yet, no one has shown through Scripture that when God said 70 weeks he didn't literally mean 70 weeks. No one has shown through Scripture that when God said 70 weeks He really meant 69 literal weeks to be followed by numerous weeks that wouldn't be counted which would be followed by a week that would be declared to be the 70th week though it literally wasn't.

[Brother Rick]

This isn't helpful at all. At least a timeline was put forth. If you disagree could you show why you believe this is wrong and how you think the timeline is to look? Otherwise it's really impossible to compare and contrast in order to discern the truth.

Ha, I know it wasn't helpful; I wasn't trying to be helpful at that point. After saying the same thing about five different times and watching them ignore or twist the text I usually resort to sarcasm and questionable behavior. :-)

If you back up and read a few of my posts you'll see why I believe what they are putting forth is overlooking some major things in the text. I don't really want to have to retype it all over again, but to summarize:

1. The message of Daniel 9 from Gabriel was concerning the nation of Israel and the holy city Jerusalem. Once the 70 weeks were complete, then there were several things that were supposed to happen to the nation of Israel that have never happened. All of the other weeks have to do with the nation of Israel, but somehow the events following don't apply to them.

2. The abomination of desolation is supposed to happen in the 70th week. The text is very clear on this, but they do everything they can to remove it from the 70th week because it destroys their system. They teach the crucifixion happens in the middle of the 70th week, and they remove the abomination of desolation from the week because they teach it happens at 70 A.D. They can't have both, obviously, because then you'd have a week with a middle part of about 40 years.

3. They ignore the fact that the last person spoken of before the covenant is mentioned is the Roman prince that shall come. It is this prince that confirms the covenant, stops the sacrifices, and commits the abomination of desolation.

There are no problems in these areas with the dispensational view. Please go back and reread the previous posts to get more info on this, specifically posts #88, #90, and #94.

[Brother Rick]

Actually, WE have to read the Bible as THEY interpret it. But I prefer to read the Bible in its context, & see what God says before I interpret. If interpretation is necessary, we need clear Scriptural guidelines.

That's rich. Keep telling yourself that guys, but everyone else can see that you're ignoring a lot of things in the text.

You can make the Bible teach anything if you choose to ignore what it actually says.

[Steve Schwenke]

John81

There is no "my history" or "their history" and I don't recall bringing that up. You brought up the comments of men and complained they were not Baptist. What I pointed out was a well respected Baptist at the very time Darby began his dispensationalism spoke out against this at the time. That's not a matter of history, it's a matter of what Spurgeon said, wrote and preached. Spurgeon was in a position to know new teaching in his time and well versed enough in Scripture to comment upon what others were preaching and teaching in his day.

It's not a matter of history?
Did Spurgeon say it? Then it IS a matter of history. You brought this up as a means of "guilt-by-association" argument. You think I should just drop my dispensationalism because "Spurgeon said it was wrong." Well, I say Spurgeon was wrong - on that point.
All men are wrong somewhere! Wesley, Whitefield, Clarke, Gill, Henry, Chafer, Scofield, Larkin, Ruckman, Greene, Ironside, and (gasp!) even YOUR favorite commentators are wrong too!
If you are going to go with the historical argument, then you had better come up with a very good defense of the old heretics Origen, Augustine, Jerome, Calvin, and all of the others who promoted all of this preterist/allegorical stuff. Those men were died-in-the-wool HERETICS.

By your idea that no men of God are worth listening to, we should not bother to read the sermons or biographies of any of the great men of God. As far as that goes, why bother listening to what any man has to say today, which would mean there would be no point in having preachers, Sunday services, message boards or even friendships.

I didn't say that and you know it. You initiated the historical argument, and you seem to be upset that I took it away from you. The historical argument goes nowhere. Let's discuss the Scriptures.

The fact is, men of God do have something to say and we are commanded by Scripture to listen and learn from them just as we are commanded to help others in the same way.

I agree that there is no need for us to "reinvent the wheel" when it comes to discussing Bible doctrine. We can and should learn from the men that God used from the past. However, we do have a King James Bible by which we judge ALL THINGS, including what those men of God from days gone by wrote and believed. According to what you have written above, we should take as Bible truth everything that Wesley and Whitefield believed, even though they were baby-sprinkling Anglicans. Well, they may have gotten salvation by faith correct, but they were certainly wrong on other points.
There is no doubt that God used Spurgeon in a mighty way - that doesn't mean that we swallow everything he says without judging it by the Scripture. The bottom line is that Spurgeon was wrong about Darby's "system."

For some reason you seem to take the discussion here very personal. You become overly defensive when someone asks a question or puts forth an alternate idea rather than simply engaging in discussion, learning, teaching.

No, I don't have time to play games. Ian and Anime are not here to learn. They are here to promote their false doctrine. I don't mind debating the issue as I have time. If others are "listening" to the conversation, then fine. But I know how to discern the difference between "an honest question" and somebody who is stirring the pot. I don't take any of this stuff personal unless someone makes a direct attack upon my ministry or personal character. And even then, I really don't care! God called me to preach and pastor our church; God equipped me for the ministry; and I am teaching what I have learned through prayer and study.

It's nothing personal from me. I don't perceive anyone "attacking" me, and I am not "attacking" anyone else. I am arguing my point directly, strongly, passionately, and pointedly. I can't help it if you misread all of that as "emotional."

I don't know if Invicta's timeline is correct or not but it was put forth in an easy to follow manner. Rick's a grown man, one I consider a friend, and doesn't need you to try and defend him from what you wrongly perceive to be attacks. For the most part Rick is very good about trying to answer sincere questions in an understandable manner.

I wasn't defending anyone....Rick can handle himself. I was just letting everyone know that I liked what he had to say. Anything wrong with that?

If you are unable to put forth a concise timeline to compare with the other one, that's fine, but there is no need to launch attacks, act offended or become defensive.

Rick did that already....I am not offended....what's your problem anyway?

No offense intended, but you seem more intent upon proving you are right than in trying to teach anyone what Scripture says. You also seem intent upon seeing anyone who doesn't agree with you or doesn't even know your view as being "one of them" rather than accepting the fact that not everyone is "us" or "them", but some are those who have not yet come to a conclusion and are earnestly seeking answers.

Well, I am a pastor, and I am supposed to teach my flock what I believe to be the truth. I am not going to apologize to anyone for it. If what I believe is true, then that means that this preterist view/allegorical view is false. I have studied this stuff out now for more than 20 years. The more I study it, the more convinced I am of my position. The answers are right there in the book. If anyone is "earnestly seeking answers," then my suggestion would be to get off these forums, get an old KJV, read it, and ask God to show you the truth about it. All forums like this one do is breed debate and confusion.

Rick, unless he allows his emotions to post, at least tries to provide helpful teaching towards understanding his point and I truly commend such posts.

Maybe you just don't like my style of writing (you probably wouldn't like my preaching either!). Look, these are complicated issues. I am busy man. I don't always have time to write lengthy detailed posts on these issues. Rick did a masterful job of saying what I would have said, so there is no need for me to repeat our position.
However, I will say that several here have "liked" my posts, so apparently some people "understood" my point, and it was "helpful" to them. I don't believe in "beating around the bush." I am direct, I am bold, I call it as I see it, I teach what I believe to be the truth. If you don't LIKE that, I can't help that. I am not going to apologize for it.
I believe that preaching and teaching should be RED HOT - hot enough to make Hell real, to make sinners squirm, to make the saints "uneasy" about their sin, to make promoters of false doctrine a little bit nervous - at least when they are around me.
Elijah and John the Baptist and Paul were not always the most "personable" of men, you know!
Maybe that is the difference here. Maybe it is a cultural thing. People down here in Texas LIKE my style of preaching and teaching, as do most people in "the South." THey like it plain and hot. They can "understand" it. But I know the northerners don't (and that is where I am from - go figure!)

As of yet, no one has shown through Scripture that when God said 70 weeks he didn't literally mean 70 weeks. No one has shown through Scripture that when God said 70 weeks He really meant 69 literal weeks to be followed by numerous weeks that wouldn't be counted which would be followed by a week that would be declared to be the 70th week though it literally wasn't.

Rick did an excellent job defending our view, but you say that "nobody" has shown our position from Scripture????
Nuts, man. That's why I don't believe that MOST of the participants here are "earnestly seeking answers." Maybe some of the non-participating readers are searching for answers, but MOST of the participants have already made up their minds....as you have just demonstrated.

[John81]

Ha, I know it wasn't helpful; I wasn't trying to be helpful at that point. After saying the same thing about five different times and watching them ignore or twist the text I usually resort to sarcasm and questionable behavior. :-)

If you back up and read a few of my posts you'll see why I believe what they are putting forth is overlooking some major things in the text. I don't really want to have to retype it all over again, but to summarize:

1. The message of Daniel 9 from Gabriel was concerning the nation of Israel and the holy city Jerusalem. Once the 70 weeks were complete, then there were several things that were supposed to happen to the nation of Israel that have never happened. All of the other weeks have to do with the nation of Israel, but somehow the events following don't apply to them.

2. The abomination of desolation is supposed to happen in the 70th week. The text is very clear on this, but they do everything they can to remove it from the 70th week because it destroys their system. They teach the crucifixion happens in the middle of the 70th week, and they remove the abomination of desolation from the week because they teach it happens at 70 A.D. They can't have both, obviously, because then you'd have a week with a middle part of about 40 years.

3. They ignore the fact that the last person spoken of before the covenant is mentioned is the Roman prince that shall come. It is this prince that confirms the covenant, stops the sacrifices, and commits the abomination of desolation.

There are no problems in these areas with the dispensational view. Please go back and reread the previous posts to get more info on this, specifically posts #88, #90, and #94.

Thank you Rick. Try to remember, I'm not "one of them" when I ask questions about this. It doesn't help me much to only hear that "their side" does or doesn't whatever.

In any case, I still see where God said 70 weeks, and regardless of what has or hasn't happened, I don't see where God ever changed His statement that it would be 70 weeks to something else. Where does Scripture say the 70 weeks were changed to 69 literal weeks, followed by more weeks than I can figure without a calculator that are not to be counted, and then some week after that would be considered the 70th week even though it obviously isn't literally the 70th week as the other 69 weeks were?

I've read your posts, and it's possible I've missed something somewhere, but I don't see where God ever changed His literal statement about 70 weeks into something else.

[John81]

John81

There is no "my history" or "their history" and I don't recall bringing that up. You brought up the comments of men and complained they were not Baptist. What I pointed out was a well respected Baptist at the very time Darby began his dispensationalism spoke out against this at the time. That's not a matter of history, it's a matter of what Spurgeon said, wrote and preached. Spurgeon was in a position to know new teaching in his time and well versed enough in Scripture to comment upon what others were preaching and teaching in his day.

It's not a matter of history?
Did Spurgeon say it? Then it IS a matter of history. You brought this up as a means of "guilt-by-association" argument. You think I should just drop my dispensationalism because "Spurgeon said it was wrong." Well, I say Spurgeon was wrong - on that point.
All men are wrong somewhere! Wesley, Whitefield, Clarke, Gill, Henry, Chafer, Scofield, Larkin, Ruckman, Greene, Ironside, and (gasp!) even YOUR favorite commentators are wrong too!
If you are going to go with the historical argument, then you had better come up with a very good defense of the old heretics Origen, Augustine, Jerome, Calvin, and all of the others who promoted all of this preterist/allegorical stuff. Those men were died-in-the-wool HERETICS.

By your idea that no men of God are worth listening to, we should not bother to read the sermons or biographies of any of the great men of God. As far as that goes, why bother listening to what any man has to say today, which would mean there would be no point in having preachers, Sunday services, message boards or even friendships.

I didn't say that and you know it. You initiated the historical argument, and you seem to be upset that I took it away from you. The historical argument goes nowhere. Let's discuss the Scriptures.

The fact is, men of God do have something to say and we are commanded by Scripture to listen and learn from them just as we are commanded to help others in the same way.

I agree that there is no need for us to "reinvent the wheel" when it comes to discussing Bible doctrine. We can and should learn from the men that God used from the past. However, we do have a King James Bible by which we judge ALL THINGS, including what those men of God from days gone by wrote and believed. According to what you have written above, we should take as Bible truth everything that Wesley and Whitefield believed, even though they were baby-sprinkling Anglicans. Well, they may have gotten salvation by faith correct, but they were certainly wrong on other points.
There is no doubt that God used Spurgeon in a mighty way - that doesn't mean that we swallow everything he says without judging it by the Scripture. The bottom line is that Spurgeon was wrong about Darby's "system."

For some reason you seem to take the discussion here very personal. You become overly defensive when someone asks a question or puts forth an alternate idea rather than simply engaging in discussion, learning, teaching.

No, I don't have time to play games. Ian and Anime are not here to learn. They are here to promote their false doctrine. I don't mind debating the issue as I have time. If others are "listening" to the conversation, then fine. But I know how to discern the difference between "an honest question" and somebody who is stirring the pot. I don't take any of this stuff personal unless someone makes a direct attack upon my ministry or personal character. And even then, I really don't care! God called me to preach and pastor our church; God equipped me for the ministry; and I am teaching what I have learned through prayer and study.

It's nothing personal from me. I don't perceive anyone "attacking" me, and I am not "attacking" anyone else. I am arguing my point directly, strongly, passionately, and pointedly. I can't help it if you misread all of that as "emotional."

I don't know if Invicta's timeline is correct or not but it was put forth in an easy to follow manner. Rick's a grown man, one I consider a friend, and doesn't need you to try and defend him from what you wrongly perceive to be attacks. For the most part Rick is very good about trying to answer sincere questions in an understandable manner.

I wasn't defending anyone....Rick can handle himself. I was just letting everyone know that I liked what he had to say. Anything wrong with that?

If you are unable to put forth a concise timeline to compare with the other one, that's fine, but there is no need to launch attacks, act offended or become defensive.

Rick did that already....I am not offended....what's your problem anyway?

No offense intended, but you seem more intent upon proving you are right than in trying to teach anyone what Scripture says. You also seem intent upon seeing anyone who doesn't agree with you or doesn't even know your view as being "one of them" rather than accepting the fact that not everyone is "us" or "them", but some are those who have not yet come to a conclusion and are earnestly seeking answers.

Well, I am a pastor, and I am supposed to teach my flock what I believe to be the truth. I am not going to apologize to anyone for it. If what I believe is true, then that means that this preterist view/allegorical view is false. I have studied this stuff out now for more than 20 years. The more I study it, the more convinced I am of my position. The answers are right there in the book. If anyone is "earnestly seeking answers," then my suggestion would be to get off these forums, get an old KJV, read it, and ask God to show you the truth about it. All forums like this one do is breed debate and confusion.

Rick, unless he allows his emotions to post, at least tries to provide helpful teaching towards understanding his point and I truly commend such posts.

Maybe you just don't like my style of writing (you probably wouldn't like my preaching either!). Look, these are complicated issues. I am busy man. I don't always have time to write lengthy detailed posts on these issues. Rick did a masterful job of saying what I would have said, so there is no need for me to repeat our position.
However, I will say that several here have "liked" my posts, so apparently some people "understood" my point, and it was "helpful" to them. I don't believe in "beating around the bush." I am direct, I am bold, I call it as I see it, I teach what I believe to be the truth. If you don't LIKE that, I can't help that. I am not going to apologize for it.
I believe that preaching and teaching should be RED HOT - hot enough to make Hell real, to make sinners squirm, to make the saints "uneasy" about their sin, to make promoters of false doctrine a little bit nervous - at least when they are around me.
Elijah and John the Baptist and Paul were not always the most "personable" of men, you know!
Maybe that is the difference here. Maybe it is a cultural thing. People down here in Texas LIKE my style of preaching and teaching, as do most people in "the South." THey like it plain and hot. They can "understand" it. But I know the northerners don't (and that is where I am from - go figure!)

As of yet, no one has shown through Scripture that when God said 70 weeks he didn't literally mean 70 weeks. No one has shown through Scripture that when God said 70 weeks He really meant 69 literal weeks to be followed by numerous weeks that wouldn't be counted which would be followed by a week that would be declared to be the 70th week though it literally wasn't.

Rick did an excellent job defending our view, but you say that "nobody" has shown our position from Scripture????
Nuts, man. That's why I don't believe that MOST of the participants here are "earnestly seeking answers." Maybe some of the non-participating readers are searching for answers, but MOST of the participants have already made up their minds....as you have just demonstrated.

I'm sorry you are unable to articulate what you call your view in a manner that actually gets the point across. I'm thankful that Rick at least tries.

I've studied the Word for 30 years and I've yet to see where Scripture indicates that when God said 70 weeks he didn't really mean 70 weeks. Why are we to take the first 69 weeks to be literal and not the 70th? I see no Scriptural support for that. If someone could show from Scripture that God said those 70 weeks would be handled that way then I would certainly be checking into that. So far, no one has.

As for all the side issues, I study those out separately as they relate to what Scripture actually says about the 70 weeks. I'm not partisan for any of the many "views", I'm simply looking to see what Scripture says.

One problem I've noticed when studying the area of eschatology is that no one "side" has an airtight case from beginning to end, yet for the most part, each side will fight to the bitter end to prove their side right, even to the point of denying the holes or potential problems in even the tiniest aspect of their side.

It seems God specifically didn't give us a 100% clear blueprint regarding the end times. I believe enough has been given to us so we can know some things for sure and draw pretty good estimations for much of the rest, but God has left some things open, which is in keeping with what He told us in Deuteronomy 29:29.

We should beware of pride in thinking we know more than we do. The religious leaders of Jesus day, as well as many others, who thought they understood the Scripture with regard to the coming Christ, turned out to be wrong.

[Brother Rick]

Thank you Rick. Try to remember, I'm not "one of them" when I ask questions about this. It doesn't help me much to only hear that "their side" does or doesn't whatever.

In any case, I still see where God said 70 weeks, and regardless of what has or hasn't happened, I don't see where God ever changed His statement that it would be 70 weeks to something else. Where does Scripture say the 70 weeks were changed to 69 literal weeks, followed by more weeks than I can figure without a calculator that are not to be counted, and then some week after that would be considered the 70th week even though it obviously isn't literally the 70th week as the other 69 weeks were?

I've read your posts, and it's possible I've missed something somewhere, but I don't see where God ever changed His literal statement about 70 weeks into something else.

I don't think He ever specifically says that.

This is why I believe what I believe:

1. The 70th week has not occurred yet. The things that were supposed to happen to Israel and the holy city after the 70 weeks were complete have not yet happened, the prince that shall come has not come, and there has been no covenant confirmed for seven years only to have the sacrifices taken away and the abomination of desolation committed 3 1/2 years into it. These things will happen in the 70th week, and they have not yet happened all within a seven year period.

2. God has set aside the nation of Israel for a future date (Rom. 9, 11). He will return to them, and they will accept their Messiah. Following that, all Israel will be saved and the things that are supposed to happen to Israel after the 70 weeks are up will occur.

3. The body of Christ, that is the church, was a mystery only revealed to Paul. It was unheard of before then (Eph. 3). The gospel went first to the Jews and only the Jews (Matthew 10). They rejected it over and over again, and then it went to the Gentile (Acts 13, 28)

4. God is genuine about His offers. He genuinely offered the Messiah to the nation of Israel multiple times, and they rejected Him. Jesus wanted to be accepted by Israel, but they rejected Him. (Matt. 23:37)

Therefore, when God is done with the Gentiles He'll go back to the Jews during the Tribulation and they'll accept Jesus. All the things described will happen in the 70th week will then occur, and then Israel will get what was promised to occur after the 70 weeks.

[John81]

I don't think He ever specifically says that.

This is why I believe what I believe:

1. The 70th week has not occurred yet. The things that were supposed to happen to Israel and the holy city after the 70 weeks were complete have not yet happened, the prince that shall come has not come, and there has been no covenant confirmed for seven years only to have the sacrifices taken away and the abomination of desolation committed 3 1/2 years into it. These things will happen in the 70th week, and they have not yet happened all within a seven year period.

2. God has set aside the nation of Israel for a future date (Rom. 9, 11). He will return to them, and they will accept their Messiah. Following that, all Israel will be saved and the things that are supposed to happen to Israel after the 70 weeks are up will occur.

3. The body of Christ, that is the church, was a mystery only revealed to Paul. It was unheard of before then (Eph. 3). The gospel went first to the Jews and only the Jews (Matthew 10). They rejected it over and over again, and then it went to the Gentile (Acts 13, 28)

4. God is genuine about His offers. He genuinely offered the Messiah to the nation of Israel multiple times, and they rejected Him. Jesus wanted to be accepted by Israel, but they rejected Him. (Matt. 23:37)

Therefore, when God is done with the Gentiles He'll go back to the Jews during the Tribulation and they'll accept Jesus. All the things described will happen in the 70th week will then occur, and then Israel will get what was promised to occur after the 70 weeks.

Yes, I understand how you believe these things tie into this but I don't see how we can take God saying 70 weeks, a very specific time period, to mean something else. Are there at least other examples of God saying something would occur within a certain period fo time but only part of that time period was literal?

I'm not saying any of the other things you have mentioned are right or wrong, I'm only asking about the 70 weeks itself. From the plain reading, it seems God is indicating a literal 70 weeks. Also from the plain reading it seems the first 69 weeks are literal. That being the case, the plain literal reading would be that the 70th week would be also.

If the 70th week is not to be considered a literal 70th week, as were the other 69, then why is there no clarification of this in Scripture?

The plain reading of the Word regarding what God said about the 70 weeks seems to indicate a literal 490 years, with no indication at all of it meaning 483 years, followed by thousands of years, and then a week which will be called the 70th week.

Regardless if what you believe is to happen in the end, whether it's right, wrong or both, I don't see how the 70 weeks is presented in Scripture as anything other than a literal 70 weeks.

If I've missed something that shows the 70 weeks are not to be taken literally, but in another way, I would appreciate knowing the verse(s) so I can study this out.

Thank you Rick, I know you've tried to put a lot into this thread.

[Invicta]

Riiiiiiight..... unless you actually read the text. Keep telling yourself that, brother.

Actually, I have read the text, prove it wrong from scripture, if you can.

Here is my scripture.

Cyrus gave the decree. Isaih 44:26 & 45:13

Nehemiah was one of the leading Jews who returned with Zerubbabel, Ezra 2:2. so he could not possibly have repaired the wall under Artaxerxes as he would have been over 150 years old. Persian names seemed to have been titles, Darius meaning merchant, or huckster. Xerxes meaning warrior. Artaxerxes meaning Great Warrior. Jewish and persion traditions give the Persian empire only about 55 years, rather than the 205 generally accepted today. Ezra give different names to kings known under secular names. History knows the names of the first five Persian kings as 1:Cyrus, 2:Cambyses, 3:The imposter, the Psuedo Smerdis and his brother or friend, known as the Magii. 4: Darius. 5: Xerxes. Ezra names these as 1: Cyrus. 2: Ahasuerus, 3: Artaxerxes. 4: Darius, 5: Not mentioned. (for 1-4 see Ezra 4.) Darius seemed to be called Artaxerxes after he overthrew at least 9 claiming to be be the ligetimate ruler, including one called Nebuchdnezzar 2.
The first seven weeks probably went from Cyrus decree till the 31st year of Darius/Artaxerxes. I say probably, because it is hard to prove from history as the Perians did not seem to bother about recording such things, but it would fit with the scriptures. For instance if you look online you will probably find that Cyrus reigned: 7 years: 8 years: 9 years: 19 years: 29-31 years. So I give what I think the most likely. Cyrus 9, Cambyses 8, the Magii 1 year: Darius/Artaxerxes 31. Total 49, or 7 weeks.

To Messiah, the prince His baptism, 62 weeks, details given recently. 3½ years to the crucifiction, another 3½ years to the Conversion of Cornelius, etc.