Group

Here is my 30K+ response to that part of Jim Lippard's "The Fabulous
Prophecies Of The Messiah" regarding Daniel's prophecy of the
70 `weeks' (Dan 9:24-27):
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

Since this could become a debate, I will preface Lippard's words with
"JL>" and ">" to distinguish them from mine, i.e. as though Lippard
had posted it to CED.

JL>The Fabulous Prophecies Of The Messiah
>Jim Lippard

[...]

JL>A prophecy relating to the time of the Messiah which many
>evangelical Christians find extremely convincing is found in the book
>of Daniel. It is probably no exaggeration to say that this prophecy,
>more than any other, convinces Christians that Jesus was the Messiah.
>Daniel 9:24-27 says:

I take this as a revealing `Freudian slip' by Lippard, in that he himself find
this prophecy "extremely convincing". The reason I say that is because in
my ~37 years personal experience as an evangelical Christian, I have rarely
heard Dan 9:24-27 mentioned. Most Christians in my experience become
Christian by being convinced of the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ
crucified as a sacrifice for their sins).

But I do think that of all the Biblical prophecies (with the possible
exception of Micah 5:2 predicting that Messiah will be born in Bethlehem),
Daniel's prophecy of the seventy `weeks' (Dan 9:24-27 is the clearest
prophecy such that even a non-Christian like Lippard could become a
Christian if they were open to that possibility and worked their way through
it carefully, and were not, like Lippard, *determined* to explain it away.

It is my position that the *objectively best* combination of starting point
(terminus a quo) and time units, yields an ending point (terminus ad quem)
that is at the time of Jesus' public ministry and death in 30 AD. And since
Jesus is the only Messiah candidate who went on to found a world religion,
Christianity, this is evidence beyond *reasonable* doubt that: 1) the
supernatural exists; 2) and therefore naturalism is false; and 3) Christianity
is true. Therefore, non Christians *should*, on rational grounds, abandon
naturalism as falsified and accept Christianity. Failure to do so, will leave
them with even less excuse when they appear before this same Jesus the
Messiah!

I have inserted verse numbers in Lippard's quoting of the passage, which
apparently is the New American Standard Version (NASB) (see
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L28B26A37)

JL>[24]"Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city,
>to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to bring in
>everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint
>the most holy place.
>
>[25]"So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to
>restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be
>seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and
>moat, even in times of distress.
>
>[26]"Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have
>nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the
>city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the
>end there will be war; desolations are determined.
>
>[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."

JL>The word translated in these verses as "weeks" is a form of the Hebrew
>word for "sevens," and is interpreted by Christians to mean seven years
>rather than seven days.

This is the start of Lippard's `spoiling' tactics, in order to try to sow
confusion and doubt, to excuse himself from having to believe that Jesus is
in fact the Messiah.

Lippard makes it sound like this is just a Christian interpretation. But
Lippard fails to mention: 1) that the "form of the Hebrew word for "sevens"
is masculine, whereas the ordinary form of the word for weeks of seven
days is feminine, therefore indicating a time unit other than seven day
weeks; and 2) if the "sevens" were seven days, then the seventy sevens
would have only been 490 days, or a little over a year and four months! The
prophecy would have been fulfilled in Daniel's lifetime and since its
predictions to "restore and rebuild Jerusalem", let alone the coming of
Messiah. Daniel then would have been a false prophet and the Jews would
never have included his book into the Old Testament canon. So the
*objectively best* interpretation of the "sevens" *cannot* be weeks of
seven days.

JL>Thus "seventy weeks" in verse 24 is interpreted
>to mean seventy periods of seven years, or 490 years, "seven weeks" in
>verse 25 is interpreted to mean 49 years, "sixty-two weeks" in verses
>25 and 26 is interpreted to mean 434 years, and "one week" in verse 27
>is interpreted to mean seven years.

Ihis the most straightforward interpretation. It is in fact the interpretation
I favour.

JL>The starting point of the prophecy is the "issuing of a decree to restore
>and rebuild Jerusalem." A decree described in the Bible to rebuild the
>temple in Jerusalem is found in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4.
>These verses describe the decree issued by Cyrus, king of Persia and
>contemporary of Daniel, in 538 B.C.E. "Seven weeks and sixty-two
>weeks," or 483 years, after this decree would be 55 B.C.E., many years
>too soon for Jesus.

Lippard fails to mention: 1) that "a decree to restore and rebuild
*Jerusalem*" is not a "decree ... to rebuild the *temple* in Jerusalem."
Therefore the Cyrus decree in 538 BC is not the objectively best terminus a
quo (starting point) of the seventy `weeks'; and 2) again Daniel would have
been regarded as a false prophet and his book would never have been
accepted by the Jews as Scripture, if the Cyrus' decree was regarded by
them as the objectively best starting point, with its terminus ad quo (ending
point) being 55 BC, when no Messiah appeared.

JL>So Christians must reject the equation of the decree in verse 25 with
>that of Cyrus, and they do.

It is interesting that Lippard does not count as "Christians" the liberal (i.e.
naturalistic) `critical' school which *insists* on Cyrus' decree of 538 BC
*precisely* to ensure that the prophecy fails so they can avoid having to
accept Daniel as supernatural predictive prophecy!

But again Lippard makes it sound as though Cyrus' decree is the objectively
best starting point, when in fact it is *not* "a decree to restore and rebuild
*Jerusalem*" but only a "decree ... to rebuild the *temple* in Jerusalem."

JL>What other decrees are available? Josh
>McDowell (1972, p. 180) offers three alternatives: a decree of Darius
>described in the book of Ezra, a decree of Artaxerxes described in
>Ezra, and a decree of Artaxerxes described in Nehemiah. The decree of
>Darius, described in Ezra 6:1-9, was to conduct a search of the
>archives to find the text of the decree of Cyrus, and then to resume the
>construction of the temple at Jerusalem using tax money. This
>occurred around 522 B.C.E. (see Ezra 4:24), which would put the
>coming of the Messiah at 39 B.C.E.--still too early for Jesus.

Again, Lippard makes it sound like the decree of Darius, based on the
decree of Cyrus, is only rejected because it is "too early for Jesus", when in
fact it is an objectively poor starting point in that it is *not* "a decree to
restore and rebuild *Jerusalem*".

JL>The decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra described in Ezra 7:11-28 allows for
>the people of Israel to return to Jerusalem, taking with them various
>support from the royal treasury. This decree was issued in 458 B.C.E.
>(see Ezra 7:7), which would put the coming of the Messiah at 26 C.E.

Actually, since it is *after* the 69th `week' it would be 27 AD. That is,
*after* 483 (69 x 7) - 458 = 25 + 1 (no 0 AD) = 26 AD, i.e. 27 AD being
the first year of the 70th `week' 27-33 AD.

JL>This works fairly well if you take the end of the "sixty-two weeks" to
>be the beginning of Jesus' ministry, though most Christians take the
>end point to be the crucifixion due to the reference in verse 26 of the
>Daniel prophecy to the Messiah being "cut off."

Here Lippard continues with his `spoiling' tactic of sowing confusion. He
slides by the *astonishing* fact that the terminus ad quem of one of the
candidate decrees, that of Artaxerxes I to Ezra in 458 BC, using ordinary
solar years, comes out at the time of Jesus (the *only* Messiah candidate
who ever founded a world religion)!

Lippard offers no evidence that "most Christians take the end point to be
the crucifixion". Most Christians I have read, take it to be Jesus' baptism
and commencement of His public ministry, which was more likely 27 AD. And
if even most Christians did take the ending point to be the crucifixion, so
what? The fact is that the verse says is "*after* (not at the *end* of) the
sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off".

In fact Lippard later on criticises Newman's posiiton on the basis that
"the prophecy says that the Messiah will be "cut off" after sixty-two weeks!

JL>Most Christians reject
>this decree, as well as those of Cyrus and Darius, as being the
>appropriate starting point for the prophecy.

See above.

JL>One exception is Gleason
>Archer. Archer (1982, pp. 290-291) argues that Ezra 9:9 implies that
>Ezra was given permission by Artaxerxes to rebuild the walls of
>Jerusalem, despite the fact that they were not rebuilt until the time of
>Nehemiah (see Nehemiah 1:3).

Unfortunately Archer, who in my view has the right decree (see tagline),
nevertheless seems fixated on "walls" when Dan 9:24-27 doesn't say
anything about rebuilding Jerusalem's walls. The idea that the prophecy
referred to rebuilding Jerusalem's wall stems from the KJV of 1611 AD
which translated Dn 9:25 erroneously due to lack of knowledge back then
of what the Hebrew word (charuwts) meant. Modern translations, including
the one Lippard is using (the NASB) render the word as "moat" (Heb. lit.
"trench"). So there is no need to find in the prophecy's fulfilment evidence
of rebuilding Jerusalem's walls.

Indeed, it is the very *generality* of the prophecy to *restore* and rebuild
*Jerusalem* that makes the decree to Ezra in 458/457 BC as the
*objectively best* starting point because only it involved *restoration* of
the religious, social and legal fabric of Jerusalem; and rebuilding of
*Jerusalem* itself, not a specific *part* of Jerusalem, such a the "temple"
(Cyrus, 538 BC) or the "walls" (Nehemiah, 445 BC).

JL>Ezra 9:9 states that God has not
>forsaken the Jews but has given them a chance "to raise up the house
>of our God, to restore its ruins, and to give us a wall in Judah and
>Jerusalem."

Archer admits this reference to "a wall" is probably metaphoric for Divine
protection, because of the reference to "Judah".

JL>In defense of the end point of the "sixty-two weeks" being
>the beginning of Jesus' ministry rather than his crucifixion, Archer
>points out that verse 26 of the prophecy says only that the Messiah's
>being "cut off" occurs after that time period, not necessarily
>immediately after it.

Well, isn't that in fact the *point*? What matters is what the prophecy
actually *says*, not what "most Christians" (in Lippard's experience)
allegedly *think* it means.

It is worth pointing out here that in the USA, the system of interpretation
known as Dispensationalism is strong among conservative evangelicals
(e.g. McDowell), whereas here in Australia, it is in my experience, very
rare. Dispensationalism is the popular theology of the "Left Behind" series
but it is *demonstrably* false (see Oswald T. Allis's dissection and
refutation of Dispensationalism in his "Prophecy and the Church). And if
pursued to its logical conclusion, Dispensationalism leads to bizarre results
Unfortunately Dispensationalism has done much to confuse and obscure the
meaning of Dan 9:24-27.

JL>The decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah described in Nehemiah 2:1-6 is
>really no decree at all. Rather, Artaxerxes gives Nehemiah letters of
>safe conduct for travel to Judah and to obtain timber to rebuild the
>gates of the temple and the walls of Jerusalem. This occurred in 445
>B.C.E., putting the time of the Messiah at 39 C.E., too late for Jesus,
>who is believed to have been crucified some time between 29 and 33
>C.E.

Lippard fails to mention that the Heb. word in Dan 9:25 rendered "decree"
(NIV, NASB, etc) and "commandment" (KJV) is dabar, which primarily
means "word", as Green renders it in his Literal Translation
(http://www.litvonline.com/litv/dan.htm#9). And in Neh 2:18, Nehemiah
recounts "the king's words (Heb. dabar) that he had spoken unto me"
(KJV). So while I regard the decree to Nehemiah's as too *specific*, i.e.
rebuilding of the gates of the temple and the walls of Jerusalem, to be
a good fit of the prophecy, it cannot be rejected on the grounds that it
"is really no decree at all". Lippard is here guilty of ignorant and
sloppy scholarship in not finding out what the word "decree" meant in
the original Hebrew, instead oft just working from an English translation.

JL>Despite these flaws, most evangelical Christians adopt this as the
>appropriate decree because Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem.

Even if this were true (and Lippard cites no evidence of it), it is
*irrelevant* on several counts - see above.

JL>In
>order to make the 445 B.C.E. starting point result in an ending point
>483 years later that is either at the beginning of Jesus' ministry or at the
>time of the crucifixion, something other than a 365-day year must be
>used.

Lippard has conveniently `forgotten' (or rather hopes his readers have) that
the decree to Ezra 458 BC does in fact "esult in an ending point 483
years later that is ... at the beginning of Jesus' ministry"!

JL>The most popular such calculation, due to Sir Robert Anderson
>and promoted by Josh McDowell, is to adopt a "360- day prophetic
>year"--an invention of Anderson based on his reading of Revelation
>11:23, where he equates 42 months with 1260 days, giving 30 days per
>month. Using "prophetic years" puts the end of the 483-year period at
>32 C.E., believed by many to be the year of the crucifixion.

Anderson was a Dispensationalist, as is McDowell. Lippard provides
no evidence that it is "The most popular such calculation", except
among USA Dispenationalists.

JL>Robert
>Newman (1990, pp. 112-114) points out several flaws in this
>calculation scheme which together are fatal to it: (1) Revelation 11:23
>does not justify the invention of the "prophetic year," because there is
>no indication that 1260 days is said to be exactly 42 months (it could
>be 41.5 rounded up), (2) a 360-day year would get out of synch with
>the seasons, and the Jews added an extra lunar month every two or
>three years to their 354- day lunar year, giving them an average year
>length of about 365 days, and (3) the present consensus on the date of
>the crucifixion is 30 C.E. rather than 32 C.E.

While I regard Anderson's "prophetic year" interpretation as wrong, it is
unfair of Lippard to put words into Newman's mouth that the "prophetic
year" is an "invention" (I have Newman's book Lippard refers to and he
does not say that). There is some Biblical warrant for a 360 day "prophetic
year", so it is not a complete invention. But the strongest criticism of
Anderson's "prophetic year is 2) and 3). In fact Newman has Lippard's 1)
last.

BTW Lippard failed to mention in his discussion of the decree of
Artaxerxes I to Ezra in 458 BC, which, using ordinary solar years for
`weeks', which "put the coming of the Messiah at 26 C.E." (actually 27
AD), "the beginning of Jesus' ministry", that if the Messiah is the "he" in
v.27 (since "the prince who is to come in v.26 is not the subject of that
verse, his "people" are), then "in the middle of the week" when "he will put
a stop to sacrifice and grain offering", which Jesus did by His death (Heb
7:27; 9:12,26; 10:10), would in fact be "30 C.E."!

JL>Newman offers his own alternative: the use of sabbatical years, which
>do have biblical justification (Exodus 23:10-11 and Leviticus 25:3-
>7,18-22). Every seventh year is a sabbatical year. Newman uses
>information from the first book of Maccabees, which has reference to
>an observance of a sabbatical year, to calculate that 163-162 B.C.E.
>was a sabbatical year and therefore 445 B.C.E., the starting point of the
>Daniel prophecy, falls in the seven-year sabbatical cycle 449-442
>B.C.E. If this is the first sabbatical cycle in the count, the sixty-ninth is
>28-35 C.E., a time period that the crucifixion falls in. In response to
>the criticism that the prophecy says that the Messiah will be "cut off"
>after sixty-two weeks, Newman says that in conventional Jewish idiom
>"after" means "after the beginning of."

I agree with Lippard's criticism of Newman's sabbath-day cycle terminus ad
quem.

But just notice how *unscrupulous* Lippard is. He rejected "The decree of
Artaxerxes to Ezra" which "was issued in 458 B.C.E." and "which would
put the coming of the Messiah at 26 C.E." (27 AD), noting that "This works
fairly well if you take the end of the "sixty-two weeks" to be the beginning of
Jesus' ministry" but then rejecting this (in effect) on the grounds that "most
Christians take the end point to be the crucifixion due to the reference in
verse 26 of the Daniel prophecy to the Messiah being "cut off"".

Yet here, Lippard in criticising Newman's position (correctly), switches
back and does it on the grounds "that the prophecy says that the Messiah
will be "cut off" after sixty-two weeks". Yet that is *precisely* what
Archer's (and my) the Ezra 458 BC interpretation claims!

JL>There are further problems for all of the above interpretations, which
>Gerald Sigal (1981, pp. 109-122) points out. Foremost among Sigal's
>criticisms is that the Masoretic punctuation of the Hebrew Bible places
>a division between the "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks," meaning
>that rather than stating that the Messiah will come after the combined
>time periods, he will come after the "seven weeks" alone. Another
>criticism Sigal makes is that the Hebrew text does not put a definite
>article in front of the word "Messiah" (or "anointed one"). The Revised
>Standard Version of the Bible is translated with these facts in mind,
>and it gives the Daniel 9:24-27 as follows:

Lippard fails to point out that: 1) the "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks"
reflects the *original* understanding of Dan 9:24, as evidenced by the fact
that that is how the translators of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament)
translated it in the 3rd-2nd century BC:

"25 And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth
of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem
until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two
weeks: and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built,
and the wall , and the times shall be exhausted. 26 And after the
sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is
no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary
with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood and
to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the
city to desolations.' (Anonymous, "The Septuagint Version of the
Old Testament and Apocrypha with an English Translation and with
Various Readings and Critical Notes," [c. 250-150 BC] Samuel
Bagster & Sons: London, n.d., p.1065)

and 2) the "Masoretic punctuation" (i.e. vowel points-the original Hebrew
text being consonants only) is by comparison recent, being commenced by
Jewish scholars ~500 AD and fixed in its final form as late as ~1000 AD.

As could be expected, I have read somehere that the Massoretes, being
Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah, where possible chose variant
readings and punctuation that sought to nullify Christian Messianic
prophecy claims.

JL>Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your
>holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone
>for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision
>and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and
>understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build
>Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be
>seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with
>squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two
>weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the
>people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the
>sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be
>war; desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant
>with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause
>sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations
>shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured
>out on the desolator.

Again, appart from the evidence of the Septuagint, which is pre-Christian
and much closer in time to the original prophecy than the Masoretes,
Lippard fails to deal with the fact that Daniel would have been a false
prophet and his book would not even be part of Scripture, if no Messiah
showed up after "seven weeks", i.e. 49 years, "to finish the transgression,
to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting
righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy
place"!

The very fact that there was a widespread expectation among 1st century AD
Jews (as recorded by historians Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus) that the
time of the Messiah's coming was imminent:

"According to ancient historians, the first century AD was a time of
unusual expectation among the Jews. The feeling was widespread
that some prophecy regarding the time of Messiah's coming was
about to expire. The Roman historian Suetonius (early 2nd cen) says
of the Jewish revolt against Rome (AD 66-73): `There had spread
over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at
that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world. This
prediction, referring to the Emperor of Rome, as afterwards
appeared from the event, the people of Judaea took to themselves.'
[Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, "The Deified Vespasian,"
4.5.] Suetonius' contemporary Tacitus also speaks of this prophecy,
supplying more information about its source: `... in most there was a
firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was
contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow
powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal
empire. These mysterious prophecies had pointed to Vespasian and
Titus, but the common people, with the usual blindness of ambition,
had interpreted these mighty destinies of themselves, and could not
be brought even by disasters to believe the truth.' [Tacitus,
Histories, 5.13.] Closer to the scene, and writing less than ten years
after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, was the Jewish historian
Flavius Josephus. Josephus wrote before Titus succeeded his father
Vespasian as emperor, and he indicates only a single expected ruler:
`But now, what did most elevate them in undertaking this war was
an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings,
how "about that time, one from their country should become
governor of the habitable earth.'' The Jews took this prediction to
belong to themselves in particular; and many of the wise men were
thereby deceived in their determination....'. [Josephus, Jewish War,
6.5.4.]" (Newman R.C., "The Time of the Messiah," [1981], IBRI
Research Report #9, 1988. http://www.ibri.org/09timeofmessiah.htm)

is evidence that the traditional punctuation, as reflected in the Septuagint
is correct.

JL>Using the Masoretic punctuation, the "sixty-two weeks" goes with the
>rebuilding of the city rather than with the coming of the Messiah. This
>interpretation explains why "seven weeks and sixty- two weeks" are
>given separately, rather than simply stating "sixty-nine weeks." Most
>apologists are either unaware of or ignore the Masoretic punctuation,

Again Lippard uses sloppy generalisation, "Most ...", but citing no evidence.

JL>but Robert Newman (1990, p. 116) rejects it on the grounds that "such
>punctuation may not date back before the ninth or tenth century AD"
>and that the structure of the verses as a whole favor his interpretation.

So why does Lippard accept a decidedly minority view based on "punctuation"
that "may not date back before the ninth or tenth century AD" and for which
"the structure of the verses" i.e. parallelism between vv.24 & 25 "as a whole
favor his [Newman's] interpretation"?

Newman does allude to the *real* reason, which no other position but the
decree to Ezra 458 BC explains (i.e. Newman's and any position based on the
decree to Nehemiah 445BC doesn't), and that is it accounts for the complete
restoring and rebuilding of Jerusalem in the 49 years from 458-409 BC.

JL>The result of all this? The Daniel prophecy is not nearly so convincing
>as it might initially appear to someone presented only with one of the
>interpretations that "works."

Lippard is deceiving himself. He has skirted around "the one ...
interpretation... that" *truly* "works", i.e. that fits *all* the facts,
Artaxerxes
I's word to Ezra's 458 BC authorising him to "restore and rebuild Jerusalem",
which:

1. Is the only decree that does not specify only a *part* of Jerusalem;

2. mentions *restoration* as well as rebuilding;

3. explains the 7+62+1 breakdown of the `weeks' 4. uses a straightforward,
non-problematic solar year unit of time;

4. terminated at the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus in 27 AD,
the only candidate Messiah who went on the found a world-religion
(Christianity);

5. fits the widespread expectation among the Jews of the 1st century that
the coming of the Messiah was imminent;

6. fits Jesus crucifixion in 30 AD in the "midst" of the 70th `week', the
seven years 27-33 AD inclusive;

7. fits the events from 30-33 AD recorded in the early chapters of the
Book of Acts regarding the final rejection of the Jews of Jesus as the
Messiah;

8. fits the Roman army's under Titus Vespasian's destruction of
Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.

It is my claim that the above interpretation is at each node the objectively
*best* interpretation and therefore it is empirical evidence that: 1) falsifies
naturalism and 2) proves Christianity is true.

JL>It is not surprising that with four choices
>for beginning points (the decrees of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes,
>plus the letters of Artaxerxes for Nehemiah),

The "decrees of Cyrus, Darius" are the same. The "letters of Artaxerxes for
Nehemiah" to don't fit the prophecy.

That leaves "the decree.., of ... Artaxerxes". Lippard found nothing wrong
with that, so if he was *really* interested in the truth, he would have
accepted it. But Lippard was just trying to find an excuse to dismiss them
all, so he didn't have to become a Christian.

JL>several possible choices
>for end points (the birth, ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus),

Lippard didn't even discuss "the birth ... Jesus". Which just shows he is
trying to muddy the water, so he doesn't have to become a Christian. Also,
Lippard himself pointed out that the "crucifixion of Jesus" does not fit the
actual words of the prophecy.

Lippard actually admitted that the "end point" fitted the "ministry ...of
Jesus". If he was a truth-seeker in this he would have accepted that choice.

JL>and at
>least three ways of counting (ordinary years, "prophetic years," and
>sabbatical cycles) calculations have been found for which Jesus fits the
>prophecy.

Lippard found nothing wrong with "ordinary years" but several things
wrong with "prophetic years," and "sabbatical cycles". So he should have
accepted the former.

JL>There are good reasons to reject each of these
>interpretations.

No. Lippard himself actually showed there was one good interpretation at
each node, which is all that is required. Lippard *should* have accepted
that one good interpretation at each node that he himself identified.

But he *obviously* is just trying to find a rationalisation to reject
all of them so he can do what he planned to do all along: reject Jesus
as the Messiah.

JL>The first two choices for beginning points don't work
>for any offered interpretations.

I take it this is the Cyrus/Darius 538/522 BC decrees which are the
sam thing. Agreed they don't work.

JL>The Artaxerxes decree works for
>ordinary years with the ministry of Jesus as the end point,

So Lippard should accept this.

JL>but says
>nothing about rebuilding Jerusalem.

Ezra was given a `blank cheque' by Artaxerxes to, after he had purchased
what was required to restart temple sacrifices, to "do whatever seems best
with the rest of the silver and gold, in accordance with the will of your
God" Ezr 7:18). This clearly covered restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem.

And the fact is that Jerusalem *was* restored and rebuilt thereafter, with no
further legal challenges from the Samaritans. Each of the other two decrees
were *specific*, covering only the temple (Cyrus 538 BC) and the temple
gates and city walls (Nehemiah 445 BC).

By a process of elimination, Artaxerxes `blank cheque' decree to Ezra in
458 BC *has* to be decree authorising the *completion* of the restoration
[Heb. shuwb ...to turn back ... return to the starting point] and rebuilding of
Jerusalem, "unto the Messiah the Prince" (KJV). The very fact that
Nehemiah, in 445 BC (i.e. 13 years after the decree to Ezra), weeps at the
news that "The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been
burned with fire" (Neh 1:3-4), means either that they had been rebuilt under
Ezra and destroyed again, or Nehemiah (who was the king's cupbearer)
expected that they should have been restored under Ezra but hadn't been.
Either way, this is conclusive evidence that Artaxerxes decree to Ezra in 458 BC
included authorisation to rebuilding the city, including its walls and gates.

JL>The Artaxerxes letters work for
>sabbatical cycles with the crucifixion as an end point, but they are not
>a decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem.

See above. Since Jerusalem was in fact restored and rebuilt, back to what it
was before the exile, in the period from Ezra's return 458 BC to ~400 BC,
how does Lippard think it happened without a decree authorising it? It is *not*
an option for Lippard to stick his head in the sand and claim there was *no*
decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

JL>Rather, they gave Nehemiah
>safe conduct to Judah and permission to use lumber from the royal
>forests.

Agreed about Nehemiah's 445 BC (and Cyrus' 538 BC) decree. By a
process of elimination that leaves Ezra's `blank cheque' decree 457 BC.
Which by a straightforward 69 x 7 = 483 solar years just `happens' to
`coincide' with the communicant of the public ministry of Jesus in 27 AD.
What a `coincidence'! And what a `coincidence' that Jesus was "cut off" ~3
years later in the "midst" of the next 7 years. And what a `coincidence' that
only 40 years later the Roman army under Titus Vespasian, did in fact
destroy Jerusalem and the temple. And what a coincidence that when it was
pointed out to him by Josephus, Titus recognised himself in description in
the prophecy of the "ruler who is to come"! *Amazing* `coincidences'!

JL>Finally, none of them take into consideration the Masoretic
>punctuation, which, if not itself in error, eliminates all of them as
>possible interpretations of the text.

See above. The "Masoretic punctuation" is comparatively recent and not the
original.

Lippard has deceived himself. In all his self-generated confusion he
actually identified the objectively best choice at each node, which worked
out to the very year 27 AD in which Jesus began his public ministry!

This just shows it is not rocket science and even a non-Christians *could*,
if he was open to the truth, by a process of elimination, work through Dan
9:24-27 and arrive at the *only* conclusion that: 1) Daniel's prophecy of
the 70 `weeks' is *stunningly* accurate, supernatural predictive prophecy;
2) therefore naturalism is false; and 3) Jesus *is* the Messiah and so
Christianity is true!

Steve

PS: See agin tagline for a summary of Archer's position, which is
closest to mine.

PPS: For those who will read this post in the future, i.e. some months
after I have posted it, I should have completed my project: "Daniel's
prophecy of the seventy `weeks' (Dan. 9:24-27)"
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/dn924-27.html but which after a
couple of false starts is still in its early stages!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thirdly, we have in chapter 9 a series of remarkable predictions which
defy any other interpretation but that they point to the coming of Christ
and His crucifixion ca. A.D. 30, followed by the destruction of the city of
Jerusalem within the ensuing decades. In Daniel 9:25, 26, it is stated that
69 heptads of years (i.e., 483 years) will ensue between a `decree' to
rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, and the cutting off of Messiah the Prince.
In 9:25, 26, we read: `Know therefore and understand, that from the going
forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the
Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks....
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for
himself; and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city
and the sanctuary.' There are two ways of computing these 69 heptads (or
483 years). First, by starting from the decree of Artaxerxes issued to
Nehemiah in 445 B.C. (cf. Neh. 2:4,8) and reckoning the 483 years as
lunar years of 360 days each, which would be equivalent to 471 solar
years and would result in the date A.D. 31 for the appearance of the
Messiah and His `cutting off' (or crucifixion). Or, more reasonably, the
starting point may be identified with the decree of Artaxerxes in his
seventh year, issued for the benefit of Ezra in 457 B.C. This apparently
included authority to restore and build the city of Jerusalem (as we may
deduce from Ezra 7:6,7 and also 9:9, which states, `God...hath extended
lovingkindness unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a
reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the ruins thereof,
and to give us a wall in Judea and in Jerusalem,' ASV). Even though Ezra
did not actually succeed in accomplishing the rebuilding of the walls till
Nehemiah arrived thirteen years later, it is logical to understand 457 B.C.
as the terminus a quo for the decree predicted in Daniel 9:25; 483 solar
years from 457 B.C. would come out to A.D. 25 as the time of Christ's
ministry. Note that the wording of verse 26, `and after threescore and two
weeks shall Messiah be cut off,' does not compel us to understand the 483
as pinpointing the time of the actual crucifixion; it is simply that after the
appearance of the Messiah, He was going to be cut off." (Archer G.L.*, "A
Survey of Old Testament Introduction," [1964], Moody Press: Chicago IL,
1966, Third Printing, pp.386-387)
Stephen E. Jones http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Moderator: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign
--------------------------------------------------------------------------