Daniel23

You know that is almost accurate... But I wasn't hurt by any of it. I am not seeking validation from man (or woman ?), so my feelings weren't on the line to be hurt. It was more feeling a sort of a frustration with the mindset of those who judge (or discern) others with a different set of principles than they do themselves. It honestly doesn't bother me that you disagree with my interpretation, but the reasoning and the twisting of words behind it is what really got me to the point where I realized there is use in trying to get any one to see what they are not willing to see. I just will focus on sharing the Good News of Jesus! I am sure you can agree with that! ?? Be Blessed, Daniel

No scriptural support as to how I determined that seven sevens were months and sixty-two were years... But this is because they were meant to be given values as the values were intentionally left off. This is not any different than determining that 7 were weeks of years... Both are providing values that weren't included. And when you quote out of context, the statement loses its intended meaning. I don't believe this was an accident. But this is a trend I saw before you did it to my words.

Again we continue with this campaign of confusion surrounded by misinformation. Before I start to address these points, I want to again mention that I do believe my experience to be a revelation by the Holy Spirit. I only want to mention it one more time as I do not want to ever appear to take credit for something that I did not have the capacity to do on my own. All the glory is to God. So that being said, I will refer to it as "my interpretation" only as a matter of convenience and to avoid the feeling that I am trying to beat a dead horse with it. First, I want to say I have studied the Hebrew translation of this and other scripture to try and find potential issues with my interpretation. If you don't already use this site, I encourage you to check it out as I have found it to be a valuable reference. http://www.qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/daniel/9.html#1 Next let me just address a couple statements that you made, which either indicate that you didn't read my last post or chose to try to twist words again to serve a different agenda: You said: Seventy – Heb. `shibiym` seventy. (note - used over 50 times in God`s word) You I am not sure why you included how many times this was used in the bible as this is not in contention. I believe you were trying refute my position that "shavui'ym was only used 5 times in the OT (All in Daniel), but you looked up the wrong word. I stand my original statement of this having a special meaning from Daniel. You said: Here we see that God is giving the land its Sabbath rests over the period that Israel rebelled, (490 years). Thus every seventh day added up to 70 years. Then God required Israel to be disciplined for the full time they rebelled – 490 years. (70 x 7 years) This we see is broken down into 3 measurements. So I am really at a loss here. I don't know where you are getting this from. I didn't see anything of 490 years of rebellion, nor 70x7 anywhere in scripture. God's word to Jeremiah was that the Israelites were to be exiled for 70 years... The rest of this seems like ultra confusion and am concerned over this. You said: Weeks – Heb. `shebuah,` sevened, ie. a week, especially of years. I believe I have seen this definition somewhere, but it is hardly accurate. Below is Strong's definition (you can click the references below to see the words used in scripture), but keep in mind the only use of the word as a Heptad is where the translators incorrectly applied it to Daniel: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7620.htm As a matter of fact, the only place that "shebua" (shavua) is interpreted to mean weeks of years is in Daniel. Which is is strange because the rest of the use of the word is as a literal week... At least that I have found this far. Secondly, I do not argue that shavua is seven days literally. Thirdly, again the use of shavui'ym is a special use of the masculine plural of shavua. But please don't take my word for it... Take the word of God. This is the various uses seven years and weeks in scripture: Exodus 34:22- “Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year.” The hebrew word for "Weeks" in this verse is Shavuot. Leviticus 23:15- “ ‘From the day after the Sabbath, the day you brought the sheaf of the wave offering, count off seven full weeks.” The Hebrew words here for "seven full weeks" is sheva shabatot. ‭‭ Deuteronomy 16:9 -“Count off seven weeks from the time you begin to put the sickle to the standing grain.” ‭‭ The Hebrew translation of "seven weeks" was shivah shavuot. Genesis 29:27 - “Finish this daughter’s bridal week; then we will give you the younger one also, in return for another seven years of work.” The Hebrew translation of "week" here was shavua, while "seven years" was shivah shaniym. Leviticus 25:8- ““ ‘Count off seven sabbath years—seven times seven years—so that the seven sabbath years amount to a period of forty-nine years.” The Hebrew translation of "seven sabbath years" was sheva shabatot shaniym, while "seven times seven years" was sheva shaniym sheva. The interesting thing here is if Daniel was speaking about seven years of seven, he could have used either "sheva shaniym sheva" or even easier would have been sheva shabatot shaniym. Also if shavui'ym would have been meant to be used as "weeks of years" as you propose, then he would have said shavui'ym shaniym, or using the proper version of weeks he would have said "Shavuot shaniym". He didn't use either one! So tell me again how I am stretching the word to fit my use and how the "weeks of years" interpretation isn't? As a matter of fact, it would seem to me that the "weeks of years" translation is adding a word to the bible as if God's word needed help. Where the translation I am working off of translates shavui'ym to a literal and undefined seven. Leaving the reader, who understands, to interpret the value of seven. Furthermore, the use of shavua in Daniel I interpreted to be a literal week as was the common use for the word in the Genesis verse above, whereas a plural week was Shavuot. The bottom line here is, I have evaluated your arguments time and time again. Showed you where they are either stretching the word to infer meaning that you want it to mean, or have in some cases misused or misquoted scripture all together. I have not strayed from the word once in my interpretation, but use it to confirm or deny the truth regardless of the source. I take care to evaluate all interpretations with the same measuring stick, never applying scrutiny to one side of an argument that I wouldn't apply to the other. I don't believe that you can say the same. As a matter of fact, you have used scrutiny towards my interpretation of the various aspects of the prophecy that we have discussed and it has withstood all of the scrutiny because it was already validated against scripture. If you applied a fraction of that scrutiny to your interpretation, it would fall apart. As for my interpretation of the seventy sevens, only God knows if I am right. This is not something as cut and dry as the Cyrus decree. However, the math works. But this obviously doesn't matter to you because you don't want me to be right. For whatever reason. That's ok too. I don't you to. I just saw what I believed to be a veil of confusion and thought that I would try to push through it with you. But at this point, this conversation is doing nothing to turn hearts towards Jesus. If you were sincerely trying to understand, this might have been worth it. But in the last few posts it became obvious that you are just trying to prove me wrong. In either case, there is much better use of our time in preaching the good news to those that don't yet understand that they're going to need it... Really really soon. God Bless you and Good luck! All Glory to Our Father in Heaven, Daniel

I Marilyn, I am not sure where you think that I am basing anything I believe off of anything but the bible. I have been most adamant about not taking Liberty with God's word, so to try to throw that in my face is disingenuous and really surprises me. The fact that you might not believe what I say was inspired by God, is not relevant to the conversation. What is relevant is even if it was just a "thought", as you put it, I validated by the Word. You can continue to put your faith in the teachings of man, and I hope it works out for you. I will continue to my trust in God (and his Word) and look for the Holy Spirit to guide me to where He wants me to be. God Bless, Daniel

Please make sure you expand on this... ??

I also want to say that the values of "periods of seven years" (or weeks of years) is also a interpreted value not provided by Daniel. So to apply scrutiny to one you would have to with the other. Afterall if Daniel wanted to use 7 times 7 year periods, he would have likely used language similar to Leviticus 25:8: “‘Count off seven sabbath years—seven times seven years—so that the seven sabbath years amount to a period of forty-nine years."

Hi Marilyn, I did not supply scripture to support the years, months and day theory as there isn't any scriptural evidence of that. However, that being said there is no scriptural evidence contradicting this either. This prophecy was meant to be revealed in "the times of the end". It is a riddle of sorts, but if we read it as it was written in its simplest form, then counting sevens would make the most sense. I would argue that if you showed a 1st grade child a list of years listed from one to one hundred and asked them to show you seven "sevens", the would count the units with "sevens" in their digits. Again, Daniel's using the word "shavui'ym" for sevens is significant as it is used only 5 times in the entire OT. I have seen it defined as literally seven, a period of seven, units of seven, or even a calculation of seven. I would argue that it literally means a unit with seven, this for whatever reason makes the most sense to me, but I will acknowledge only because it makes it more convenient. However I don't believe it is necessary to dig that deep into it. The Lord created His word to be read in the context and meaning of specifically for this appointed time, while also making it to be read and understood specifically for the many generations before us. There are no accidents. So when I read the NIV version of Daniel as sevens and the KJV as weeks, it didn't make sense to me and I couldn't reconcile the two. So I dug into it. I tried everything I could to make intellectual sense of these 3 verses 24-27 in Daniel and I felt that veil of confusion over my mind. I knew at that moment there was no way I would ever be able to intellectually make sense of it as Daniel intended. So I said out loud, "That's it God! I quit!". It is only after that moment of surrender that the answer came clearly to mind. Now I know that people, such as Kan, frown on me claiming the Holy Spirit's help, but I don't really care. There is no explanation for what happened. Could I be deceived? Absolutely. But the bottom line is, a simple thought came to mind. "Why don't you try counting sevens?" So I looked at the 62 and started counting them out... 7,17,27,37,47...etc. And when I got to "77" I "knew" that it was two sevens. I wrote it out and it came to 567 years.. Which 567 years from the decree of Cyrus in 539 BC (or 3222 Hebrew) was 28 AD (or 3789). Now I can't quite convey what that experience was like and many will think I am exaggerating, but I can assure you that I wrote out the numbers once and counted them once and up to that point I thought it was the Holy Spirit, but honestly I wasn't sure of it. Well, needless to say, I was astounded when the math lined up and the timeline was in the window of the crucifixion. Next I knew that I had to do something with the seven sevens... (SIDE NOTE: I didn't combine the sevens as I believed that they were separated for a reason, and like Isaac Newton said, "We avoid also the doing violence to the language of Daniel, by taking the seven weeks and sixty two weeks for one number. Had that been Daniel's meaning, he would have said sixty and nine weeks, and not seven weeks and sixty two weeks, a way of numbering used by no nation." So looking at it like a math problem, I structure it like this with "D= Cyrus Decree" and "C=Crucifixtion": D+7x+62y+1z=C So looking back to scripture, I read verse 25 again and it says, "...there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’". I immediately "thought" of months and years. So I read it as if it said, "...there will be seven 'months (with sevens)', and sixty-two 'years (with sevens)'." And I further confirmed when reading Daniel's explaining the time in Daniel 10:4 "On the twenty-fourth day of the first month...". Though he didn't use years in this passage it would have been common to end with "... in the third year of Darius" . So I decided to count the sevens in "months". It came to 67 months or 5 years 7 months. Add this to the 28AD it comes to 33AD (or 3794). If we were to add 7 months to the beginning of the start of 3794 on October 4th, 33AD, we come to Wednesday, April 14th, 34AD. The week to the day before Passover began. Add in the last "seven (of days)", and you have the timeline of Jesus entering Jerusalem, stopping the sacrifice and offering at the temple, telling the Pharisees to destroy the temple (His body) and he would raise it 3 days (setting up the "abomination that causes desolation"), and ultimately His sacrifice on the cross. I will admit that this is a tight time frame (as the only way all 3 values work is this timeline), but it is miraculous without stretching scripture or using complex math to make it work, that it comes within the precise window that is generally accepted (though not entirely void of objections) time frame for all events. You can discern for yourself, but the math definitely works. God Bless You, Daniel

572 years and 7 months... Plus the last seven as a literal week. you can see how it breaks down on my post. http://daniel23.com/daniel9

Ok... So I am finally back to a PC and can address several different things at once. It became tedious trying to respond and quote specific things from my phone. Before I get started I would like to say that you both seem like good people and at this point I am confident that your hearts are in the right place. Marilyn, you in particular are a special person and you have approached me with nothing but love and respect from the beginning. It has been received and I hope that you can receive my messages with the same. I also want to clarify my post regarding the veil of confusion and Satan's deception. When I said these things I in no way meant it to mean that Satan has a hold on you because if he did it would be obvious for now. What I was speaking on was the collective messages that are taught and accepted by Christians worldwide. These collective messages have taken liberties with the word of God and have built up a picture in the minds of many Christians that are built upon these liberal uses of the Word. While I believe that these interpretations were delivered with the best of intentions, it has lead to what I feel could be disastrous consequences. If I were to take liberty with the perfect and infallible word of God, I would be claiming that God's word isn't perfect at all. That it needed a bit of massaging in order to be received the way he intended it to be received. We can read and interpret God's word, we can interpret meaning where there is no meaning provided. However, when we infer meaning to His word, while rationalizing the dismissal of the meaning that He Himself had provided to us, it is tantamount to exalting ourselves by claiming the Wisdom of God to discern His "real meaning" though it may stand in direct contradiction to other scripture. While I am not saying that is what either of you are doing, it is with this level of caution that we proceed in examining His word as it is written. That being said, in case you wonder how I can say this and yet offer my own interpretation for Daniel's sevens (shavu'iym) is because the sevens were offered as a type of riddle meant to be interpreted at a future date in the times of the end. (Daniel 12:4 and 12:9) The first comment that I would like to address is the following regarding the lack of scripture in my comments: While it is true that my last post lacked any scriptural reference, but that is only because I was on my way home and didn't have time to get into specific details of anything. That being said, my contention with you and Kan is based purely on scriptural evidence to the contrary of your respective positions. So that comment kind of took me off guard because I am very careful to not paraphrase when using the word as authority. If I were to paraphrase the position of the bible, it would be an attempt to give authority to my words rather than the Word standing as the final authority. This is not something I would ever intentionally do as I a grateful submit myself to the authority of His word as it is written. This was a bit confusing for me. I think what you are saying is that Isaiah's prophecy was of King Cyrus prophetically saying that Jerusalem would be rebuilt. So the fact that he issued a decree to rebuild the temple and restored the Israelites to Jerusalem, doesn't matter because it doesn't say "temple" in Daniel 9:25. And Isaiah's prophecy that specifically mentions Cyrus and the rebuilding of Jerusalem, doesn't confirm anything because Cyrus "says" rather than "decrees" that Jerusalem will be rebuilt?? Does this not seem confusing to you? And what about Isaiah 45:13, which was the other scripture I had referenced that you didn't mention: "I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the Lord Almighty.” So Cyrus issued a decree to restore and rebuild a house for God in Jerusalem, He restored the people to Jerusalem, He began the work of the rebuilding of the city, He was prophesied to say to Jerusalem that it would be rebuilt, he was also prophesied to rebuild the city and set the lords exiles free... But yet, no it can't be the Cyrus decree because it has to be this one from Artaxerxes: This verse in Nehemiah 2:4-5 is Nehemiah requesting the King send him to Jerusalem (the city where his ancestors are buried) to rebuild it (specifically its wall). There wasn't a decree attached to this permission. There were two letters from the King, one to the governors of Trans-Euphrates for Nehemiah's safe passage and another to Asaph, to provide timber for the gate, the wall and his personal residence. These were not decrees. Further more, even if somehow we could twist the words enough to make one believe that this was a decree, how would you explain that once Artaxerxes found out that they were rebuilding the city (Ezra 4:12-24), he ordered the work to cease (Ezra 4:23-24). Had he decreed the rebuilding of Jerusalem, not only would he have known about it, but his governors would have known as well. Further in Nehemiah 2:12, Nehemiah says after leaving the king with his 2 letters, "I set out during the night with a few others. I had not told anyone what my God had put in my heart to do for Jerusalem. There were no mounts with me except the one I was riding on." And in Nehemiah 2:16 he says, "The officials did not know where I had gone or what I was doing, because as yet I had said nothing to the Jews or the priests or nobles or officials or any others who would be doing the work." The thing about decrees are they are not secret. I really, really, really don't understand how you can't see this? I don't understand how you get into the very finite details of Cyrus to attempt to ignore what God Himself has said. But yet, squeeze out every ounce of meaning you could possibly come up with to try to stretch God's word to fit Artaxerxes. I really wanted to go through the confusion that has permeated this conversation from the start of my participation in this thread, to hopefully shed some light on the level of denial here as referenced by the confusing, changing, and contradictory responses here: 1. Wrong King... Was Artaxerxes. ("Mistake acknowledged and corrected later) 2. The Correction- Mostly correct. The only thing I would add, as I think it might be a bit misleading, to leave it (highlighted red) as it is. The actual verse for which this statement is based says, "Then the peoples around them set out to discourage the people of Judah and make them afraid to go on building.[a] 5 They bribed officials to work against them and frustrate their plans during the entire reign of Cyrus king of Persia and down to the reign of Darius king of Persia." 3. Correctly identifying the Cyrus decree as the decree from Daniel 9:25, would mess up another prophesy from another chapter... Huh? Should we be trying to stretch God's word to make it fit our understanding of other prophesies... Or should we be stretching our understanding to fit with God's word??? 4. The Decree of Cyrus- Check (Now we're getting somewhere); The work being hindered by Darius??? Oops wrong king again. Again it was Artaxerxes. Then finally it was labeled now as "the empowerment for that decree to be enacted". I am sorry I missed that part in the Bible.. Well sorry that it went on and on, but I wanted to make sure to include everything. I am going to pray that we can start to see what we're missing here and if I am missing something or am delusional, I will pray that this too would be revealed... Because I am starting to feel like I am taking crazy pills here. In any case, Stay Blessed. Your Brother in Christ, Daniel

No I didn't miss it... Just have been driving all day and just responded to the first post I saw. I am going to respond, but at this point not feeling so hopeful because both of you will use the a discerning eye claiming that Cyrus' decree was "only for the temple" but yet use Ezra's words to Artaxerxes as proof of his decree. Does it not even strike you as a bit biased? And to acknowledge that God said Cyrus would say of Jerusalem, "let it be built", but in the next breath say, "but he really just meant Artaxerxes would be the one to decree it". There is no evidence of any of this in the bible. Is our God a God of confusion? I believe in the literal meaning of the bible and where there is figurative meaning (which I believe there are many instances of this) it needs to first be accepted literally. i just feel like I am talking to liberals (which I assume both of you are not) about abortion or gay marriage... That no matter how much facts back up my argument, the facts are twisted to the point where they are recognizable in order to fill a narrative they are unwilling to part with. This may be fine if the facts are in history books, but it's not ok when it is the authoritative Word of God. But I will take another run at it when I get home. But again I am not too hopeful of getting you guys to see past this veil of confusion that separates us. I would like to pose this question to you out of curiosity: I keep banging the drum that you cannot take liberties with the Word of God, subtract or add to what is already there... I know you both don't think that you are doing this, but it is evident to me that you are. That being said, do you think that I am adding or subtracting from the Word? If so could you give me specific examples of where you feel I might be doing this? I ask this earnestly, as I don't want to become party to a self delusion and will honestly weigh your comments against what I have posted thus far and compare that to the Word. Thanks! Daniel

I guess I am having a hard time understanding what the significance is of there being multiple Cyrus' and Nebuchadnezzars, since you identify that proper timeline of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Are you saying that Isaiah was talking about another King Cyrus who would issue a command to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple?? Do you know who this Cyrus is so I can look it up? And where are you getting that the work was hindered by Darius? As a matter of fact it explicitly says that the work was not stopped by Darius in Ezra 5:5 (see my earlier reply) I am at a loss as this keeps getting more confusing and the facts just don't line up. The work was hindered under Artaxerxes, as I posted earlier in Ezra 4:13 "“As soon as the copy of the letter of King Artaxerxes was read to Rehum and Shimshai the secretary and their associates, they went immediately to the Jews in Jerusalem and compelled them by force to stop.” and in Ezra 4:14 it says "“Thus the work on the house of God in Jerusalem came to a standstill until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.”. That all having been said, the fact is that decree of Cyrus was to rebuild AND restore Jerusalem. Obviously the exile had ended (the city was restored with its people) and the construction on the temple began. Sacrifices were being offered. So I really am confused why this is so hard for you to see. Let's break down each "decree" of Artaxerxes one last time and you can tell me where there is an EXPLICIT decree other than just inferring one from information that doesn't support it: Ezra 4:21- The decree to stop work on the temple. Ezra 7:13-20- the decree to "allow" any of the Israelites who volunteered to go back. Ezra 7:14 says that they were sent by the King to "inquire about Judah and Jerusalem with regard to your God" and they were to take with them silver and gold from the temple. There is nothing even hinting at rebuilding anything. Ezra 7:21 - the decree to provide (with diligence) what ever supplies were needed for the temple of God. It says, “Whatever the God of heaven has prescribed, let it be done with diligence for the temple of the God of heaven. Why should his wrath fall on the realm of the king and of his sons?” Again there is nothing in this decree that mentions anything about rebuilding. ‭‭Nehemiah 2:5-9 - This is the closest to a decree that there is in the bible, but it is still not a decree to "restore and rebuild Jerusalem". There are three aspects of this that we can verify without offering guesses that are not biblical: 1. Nehemiah asks the King to send him to Jerusalem so he can rebuild it. The king obliges to grant that request, by sending him. There was no formal decree here. We would have to add to the word of God to say there was. 2. Nehemiah asks for a letter To the governors of Trans-Euphrates to give Nehemiah safe passage. The king obliges. 3. Nehemiah asks for another letter to Asaph, so that he will give him the supplies needed to rebuild the wall and a home for himself. The king obliges. In none of these three aspects of Nehemiah was there anything that could be deemed a decree to "rebuild and restore Jerusalem". I really am trying to understand where you guys are coming from, though it might seem that I am not because I am not coming off these points... But I studied this all in detail prior to looking for a solution that made better sense. There isn't one. Cyrus issued the decree as prophesied by Isaiah, restoring Jerusalem as prophesied by Jermiah. Darius issued a decree for no one to get in the way of Cyrus' decree... Thereby reaffirming Cyrus' decree. Artaxerxes, issued decrees to provide the Ezra and Nehemiah the resources they needed to again follow through with finishing THE decree of Cyrus. Thereby, at best reaffirming Cyrus' decree. I don't know if I can paint a clearer picture than that. It is not complicated by design, but we make it complicated and you already know that I feel this is intentionally deceiving. Why not instead of trying to stick to the status quo in spite of the evidence that it is not biblically valid, why don't you look at the calculation I put forth and argue the merits of that. This would be a much more fruitful conversation. After all, even the scholars themselves can't argue that the Cyrus decree is a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, though they negate it by saying it was only the temple. They won't deny that Cyrus ended the exile and thereby restored the Israelites to Jerusalem. The detail about his specific reference to rebuild the temple, despite God plainly telling Isaiah that Cyrus would be the one to command Jerusalem to be rebuilt and he would build the foundations of the temple (which is historically accurate)... If one were going to rebuild Jerusalem, where else would they start other than the house of God??? The argument against the decree of Daniel being explicitly given by Cyrus exerts an unreasonable level of scrutiny that is not equally (if at all) applied to the Artaxerxes inferred decree. There is something that I want to acknowledge here and it is that if I were in your shoes and this was the only way that it would prove that Daniel's prophecy regarding the Messiah was correct... Then I might have a problem too. However, the interpretation I give is far more accurate and lines up to the date of Jesus entering Jerusalem and His crucifixition at the end on the last seven. But that is the kicker isn't it??? It is letting go of that last seven and not using it towards end times prophecy. Well, that should not prevent us from reading God's word literally and not adding or subtracting anything from His infallible, perfect Word. Daniel

Kan, Each chapter of the Daniel represents a different prophecy these were sometimes decades apart from each other. So it doesn't shift the timeline of Daniel 8, because Daniel 8 is dealing with end times... Daniel 9 is prophesying the Savior. These are not mutually exclusive. As for there being different Cyrus' I haven't found another Cyrus who was a Babylonian King that issued a decree. I actually didn't find another Babylonian King named Cyrus anywhere. If you have some examples of this I would be interested to read on this and the "different" Nebuchadnezzars that existed. This is the first I have heard of this. I appreciate the softening of your tone from previous posts and while I would like to continue the conversation in this tone, I have to say that the problem that I think we're going to struggle with is that you are more interpreting the bible to fit a narrative that you have already accepted as truth. This will be a nonstarter because though I already brought up points why the Artaxerxes decree did not exist or at best was decree inferred from various verses, you haven't seemed to address that. If Artaxerxes could have logically been THE DECREE, I would have never questioned it beyond that. But because it couldn't past muster, I started digging and thus I came on the path I am today. I used nothing other than the word of God (with the help of what I believe was the Holy Spirit) to come up with any of this. I used outside sources for historical data only after the interpretation was done and only to see if it was close enough to be considered a fit. If there is something I am missing, please share it with me... I am after the truth and if my interpretation can be proven wrong... Then I can accept it. God's word is the only authority and I don't want to interpret it in a way that only serves my needs or desires. Because at the end of the day, if I am delusional... I have to answer to God as to why I perverted His word. Thank you for attempting another angle at approaching this discussion... It will be much more productive if we can treat each other as family in Christ... Because He is what is really important! In the Spirit of His Love, Daniel

I am sorry.. I must've missed that part. I thought we were talking about Daniel... When the Angels were discussing when the events would take place. I don't recall anywhere in Daniel where they mention witnesses? Are we reading different bibles? I answered in the spirit of your question. Honestly, I have wrestled with that verse a few times and the only sense of it I could make was in an interpretation that I read somewhere stating it was a "time of times and a half a time" as opposed to "time, times and a half a time". And that is only because of working backwards from now. No magic. No revelation. Just guesswork that is worth about as much as the other interpretations. I would be glad to entertain a real conversation with you, but it has to be based on more than a "gotcha" strategy. Kinda like the Pharisees.

A time of times and a half a time you mean? 2500 years

Kan, I am sharing with you my experience... You can discern the truth for yourself, but the things I pointed out above should be a HUGE concern for you. How did you state that you had studied Ezra and "found the same" , but yet you didn't realize that it was misquoted to the point where the REAL word of God was perverted in the statement that I addressed above. But because I put the authority of the matter in God's word and thr importance of being accurate when describing or quoting His word... That puts me on a slippery slope. I was tutored... I had truth revealed to me by the Holy Spirit. And no, there wasn't a caveat that I had to keep it secret. As a matter of fact, I say that not to claim prophecy... Because it wasn't prophecy. I say that to give ALL the glory to God for without Him I would have nothing to add to this conversation. I chased intellectual answers to the brink of madness. The answers were revealed to me when I gave up on trying to figure it out... You don't have to believe me, my relationship with God is not dependent on your validation of it. I did not say that Marilyn intentionally lied... I posed it as one of two options, if you could provide me other alternatives as to how she posted what she did, which was grossly inaccurate and not reflective of the actual words in the bible, I would happily be willing to listen to it. I actually said she has been deceived with a veil of confusion... It is apparent she is intelligent (so she doesn't lack the capacity to understand). She seems like a true believer(so she doesn't seem like the type that would intentionally pervert the Word to deceive others). So if she is confused it is not by intelligence... Then it is likely something external is causing confusion. I simply offered an explanation as to what that might be. That is the end of the matter. “However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived” — the things God has prepared for those who love him— these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭2:9-16‬

Hi Kan, It might be clear, but it is completely inaccurate. This is a gross deception that I hope you guys awaken to... It might seem that this is not a salvation issue type of subject, and that I would agree to. But the fact that there is such a thick layer of deception (from the Great Deceiver himself) over this subject matter, I have a feeling the consequences will be catastrophic. Why else would he go through such trouble to keep the truth hidden? “He said to them, “Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don’t you put it on its stand? For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. If anyone has ears to hear, let them hear.” “Consider carefully what you hear,” he continued. “With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.”” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭4:21-25‬ ‭

Marilyn, Please don't think I am being obnoxious here when I say what I am about to say, because I assure you that I am not. As I read through your post I had the uneasy feeling that you are under a veil of confusion. That for whatever reason, you cannot read it as it is, but have some type of block that is preventing you from being able to do so. Again, I don't mean this as anything negative to you, (and please try to hear me on this) but rather Satan has confused the words for you so you can't read them. Maybe I am wrong, but I will give you some examples of what I am talking about: The first part of your statement is accurate, though I would add that the people already had began returning from exile, lived in the city of Jerusalem and began making regular offerings and sacrifices before the foundations had been made... They did this because it had been decreed by Cyrus 7 months earlier to "restore and build" Jerusalem. I know you previous statement you emphasized that scripture doesn't specifically mention Jerusalem in his decree. I would argue that the decree was specific to fulfill The prophecy of Jeremiah that said the exile from Jerusalem would end after 70 years (in other words the people would be restored). But I also mentioned that in Isaiah 44:28 God says, "“who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, “Let it be rebuilt,” and of the temple, “Let its foundations be laid.” ’” This very specifically says that "Cyrus will say (decree)" Jerusalem will be rebuilt and that the foundations will be laid. To which your response was: "BTW Isa. 44: 28 is the Lord saying what He will do" ‭I don't get it. Yes that is exactly what I said the problem was. If Cyrus was NOT the one to issue the decree AND restore and rebuild Jerusalem, then this verse would be FALSE and we would have a fallible God. This is where I really believe there is some serious tricks going on with Satan and God's people... Because I KNOW you are not doing this intentionally. The second part of your statement I quoted (above) says this (my emphasis added with underlines) ....there came much opposition who wrote to king Cyrus saying that if the city is rebuilt then the king would not have dominion over it. (Ezra 3: 11. 4: 1 & 16) The king replied, 'Now give the command to make these men cease, that this city may NOT be built until the command by me.` (Ezra 4: 21) The first sentence is incorrect: the people did not write any such thing to Cyrus. Why would they? He is the one that decreed it! There were two different instances of letters regarding the opposition to the rebuilding of the temple: The first is letter to Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:11-16), which is the one you incorrectly attributed to Cyrus. It was Artaxerxes who received that troubling report from Reshum and Shimshai regarding the current rebuilding of the city and its walls. This is MANY years after the decree of Cyrus and the end of the exile. This chapter does not specify when in his reign this occurred, but it was likely before Nehemiah returned to finish the wall. As you incorrectly attributed the letter of opposition to Cyrus, the same applies to the command (decree) for the work to cease... This statement was from Artaxerxes not Cyrus. “As soon as the copy of the letter of King Artaxerxes was read to Rehum and Shimshai the secretary and their associates, they went immediately to the Jews in Jerusalem and compelled them by force to stop.” ‭‭Ezra‬ ‭4:23‬ This obviously is VERY clear and I am a little surprised to see that you framed it the way that you did... (I will get back to that in a minute. The other of the letters is to King Darius (Ezra 5:8) which they report the rebuilding of the temple and quote the people of Jerusalem referencing Cyrus' decree (Ezra 5:14, this is the 1st time that Cyrus' decree is confirmed outside Ezra 1). Then Tattenai (the governor writing the letter) asks King Darius to look in the royal archive for a record of the decree. King Darius does find the decree (Ezra 6:2-5, another confirmation of the decree) and then issues a decree of his own that basically states that they are to financially support the rebuilding and otherwise stay out of the way of the people doing what Cyrus already decreed. Now back to what I mentioned above, about my surprise to how you completely misreferenced Cyrus to the acts and words of Artaxerxes. Now one of two things happened here and I have already let it be known which I think it is, but I will leave this up to you to respond (but I pray this wakes you up to this veil of confusion I mentioned): a) There truly is a veil of confusion and you misunderstood the verse you quoted and the plain context it was written in. Or b) You intentionally took words out of context and outright lied, in order to make Artaxerxes fit your narrative. Now again, though I don't know you... And haven't much experience with you in the forums, as I am brand new still, I don't believe "b" to be the case. However, that being said... You really missed the mark on how you laid this out... If the mark is to be true to God's word and not add or take away. So that tells me that the deception/confusion is thick around this area. I know why it is powerful and why it has a hold on A LOT of Christians, but that is a talk for another day... I truly pray that I was able to open your eyes to this, not meaning I am right and you're wrong, but rather the level of what I will claim to be true supernatural deception (Satan) that is going on around the Daniel prophecies and the Artaxerxes decree that never happened. Side Note: I know I didn't touch on the fact that Artaxerxes issued letters on behalf of Nehemiah to provide him safe passage and to provide him supplies to rebuild the wall.... Because that is all that he rebuilt... Walls and the house he would live in. This also was not a decree... It was permission granted to Nehemiah's requests.

Thanks Marilyn! I look forward to it too. I mean we're here to help each other and hopefully turn some hearts towards Jesus. Just because we may find differences in opinion, should be a divisive factor. After all, there is but one Authority and I believe we're all trying to do our best by Him. This is a tough subject, as there is a lot of belief of end times prophecy that uses some of this for its foundation. I just hope we can just do all we can do to bring Glory to God by understanding His word as He intended it... Not as we have been taught nor to bring glory to ourselves. It seems that our intentions are inline with His... So only good can come from this discussion. God Bless! Your Brother in Christ, Daniel

If you are referring to the widely accepted interpretation, you are not correct. If you are referring to the one I shared, then you are correct. In either case a little more detail would have been helpful.

Hi Marilyn, Thanks for bringing up this great thread! I am passionate about Daniel, especially the "sevens" and I ask that you grant me some leeway as I can be quite opinionated and may risk sounding arrogant... But I assure you that is not the case, but rather there are certain things I can't wrap my mind around when discussing the widely accepted interpretation of sevens as weeks of years and the decree as Artaxerxes. I got into this on another post, but could you share your perspective with me on the following questions: 1. How is Artaxerxes granting permission to Nehemiah to go to Jerusalem seen as a decree to rebuild Jerusalem when most of it had already been rebuilt, as this was almost a full 100 years after the Jews returned from exile? (I understand the walls weren't built, but the decree was not to rebuild the walls it was to rebuild the city and the temple. Daniel mentions that these things would be done during the 62 sevens, but not as a reference to the decree.) 2. How can you dismiss the explicit decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1-4), as well as God telling Isaiah that Cyrus would be the one to say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt" (Isaiah 44:28)? 3. How does it make sense to combine the seven sevens and sixty two sevens when Daniel (or Gabriel) separated them for a reason? On a side note, the use of "shabua" (shavua) is in Daniel 9:27... In 24-26 when discussing the plural sevens he uses shavui'ym as a unique masculine plural use of shavua as the typical masculine plural use of shavua would be Shavuot. As a matter of fact the only time that shavui'ym is used in the Old Testament (and the entire bible I believe) is the four times it is used in Daniel 9. The literal translation of shavua is sevens (usually as in a period of sevens). Furthermore I would say that if Daniel wanted to use sevens to mean weeks of sevens, he would have likely followed the tradition of the Jubilee by saying seventy sabbath years as it was in Leviticus 25:8. Lastly, I hope people can evaluate the possibility that each chapter of Daniel should be taken and examined separately as these prophecies were sometimes decades apart and though some language may seem similar, the context is different and these prophecies are meant to stand on their own. When we combinine them with days and weeks and years from other unrelated prophecies, we confuse the message and our readers. I have a detailed post on this subject on my site, but I will tell you that my revelation into Daniel showed me that the seven "shavui'ym" were seven months with seven... The sixty-two shavui'ym were sixty-two years with sevens... And the final seven? Was a literal week. This solves virtually all the issues with the current interpretations. I will be glad to share it with you, because it leads from the decree of Cyrus in 538BC to seven days before Passover in 34BC as the start of the final seven. Be Blessed, Daniel

I would like to actually share a revelation that I had on this very subject... However, the revelation I had was about how Genesis told the entire story of man... Up to this day. I wrote a detailed account of it on daniel23.com, but he is a quick summary of what was revealed to me: Day 1: Adam and The Age of the Fall AND GOD SAID, “LET THERE BE LIGHT,” AND THERE WAS LIGHT. GOD SAW THAT THE LIGHT WAS GOOD, AND HE SEPARATED THE LIGHT FROM THE DARKNESS. GOD CALLED THE LIGHT “DAY,” AND THE DARKNESS HE CALLED “NIGHT.” AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING—THE FIRST DAY. GENESIS 1:3-5 Day 2: Noah and The Age of the Flood AND GOD SAID, “LET THERE BE A VAULT BETWEEN THE WATERS TO SEPARATE WATER FROM WATER.” SO GOD MADE THE VAULT AND SEPARATED THE WATER UNDER THE VAULT FROM THE WATER ABOVE IT. AND IT WAS SO. GOD CALLED THE VAULT “SKY.” AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING—THE SECOND DAY. GENESIS 1:6-8 Day 3: Abraham and The Age of the Covenant AND GOD SAID, “LET THE WATER UNDER THE SKY BE GATHERED TO ONE PLACE,AND LET DRY GROUND APPEAR.” AND IT WAS SO.GOD CALLED THE DRY GROUND “LAND,” AND THE GATHERED WATERS HE CALLED “SEAS.” AND GOD SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD. THEN GOD SAID, “LET THE LAND PRODUCE VEGETATION: SEED-BEARING PLANTS AND TREES ON THE LAND THAT BEAR FRUIT WITH SEED IN IT, ACCORDING TO THEIR VARIOUS KINDS.” AND IT WAS SO. THE LAND PRODUCED VEGETATION: PLANTS BEARING SEED ACCORDING TO THEIR KINDS AND TREES BEARING FRUIT WITH SEED IN IT ACCORDING TO THEIR KINDS. AND GOD SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD. AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING—THE THIRD DAY. GENESIS 1:9-13 Day 4: King David and King Solomon: The Age of God’s Temple AND GOD SAID, “LET THERE BE LIGHTS IN THE VAULT OF THE SKY TO SEPARATE THE DAY FROM THE NIGHT, AND LET THEM SERVE AS SIGNS TO MARK SACRED TIMES, AND DAYS AND YEARS, AND LET THEM BE LIGHTS IN THE VAULT OF THE SKY TO GIVE LIGHT ON THE EARTH.” AND IT WAS SO. GOD MADE TWO GREAT LIGHTS—THE GREATER LIGHT TO GOVERN THE DAY AND THE LESSER LIGHT TO GOVERN THE NIGHT. HE ALSO MADE THE STARS. GOD SET THEM IN THE VAULT OF THE SKY TO GIVE LIGHT ON THE EARTH, TO GOVERN THE DAY AND THE NIGHT, AND TO SEPARATE LIGHT FROM DARKNESS. AND GOD SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD. AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING—THE FOURTH DAY. GENESIS 1:14-19 Day 5: Jesus Christ and The Age of Redemption And God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” GENESIS 1:20 Day 6: Satan and The Age of Enlightenment ““And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”. Genesis 1:24 Day 7: Jesus Returns and The Age of God’s Rests THUS THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH WERE COMPLETED IN ALL THEIR VAST ARRAY. BY THE SEVENTH DAY GOD HAD FINISHED THE WORK HE HAD BEEN DOING; SO ON THE SEVENTH DAY HE RESTED FROM ALL HIS WORK. THEN GOD BLESSED THE SEVENTH DAY AND MADE IT HOLY, BECAUSE ON IT HE RESTED FROM ALL THE WORK OF CREATING THAT HE HAD DONE. GENESIS 2:1-3 Other than each of these fitting chronologically within each of God's specific creation days (a thousand year to us) timeline You will see that you cannot switch any of these key biblical features into any other day, nor could you substitute any other figure and have the same result. He truly did know the end from the beginning and He has been proving it this whole time. It is mind boggling! Stay Blessed! Daniel

I have read through all these comments and there is obviously an inherent problem with the entire current Daniel translation of the "sevens" (or shavui'ym in Daniel 9:24-26 and shavua in 9:27) as "weeks of years".. It doesn't work. It doesn't work for the "seven sevens" and the "sixty two sevens"... And it doesn't work for the last seven. There is only one decree to rebuild Jerusalem in the bible and it is the decree of Cyrus. The reason that people keep trying to convince us that it had to be Artaxerxes is because that is the only way the math works. The problem with this is, even if we were to accept that Artaxerxes made a decree that was not explicit in the word of God, it would make the prophecies in Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1-13 false. So if the first 69 "sevens" aren't solved why would the last be any different. I wrote a post a few days ago explaining an entirely different interpretation of Daniel, that shows that the shavui'ym, which was a word unique to Daniel 9, was not "weeks of years", but rather periods with 7's... And these 3 separate "sevens" are each different units of times... With the last 7 being a literal week. On my post I show that this calculation leads from the decree of Cyrus to the exact day of the beginning of the last seven (Jesus' last week) on Wed. April 14th, 34AD. In the middle of that week he kicks the merchants out of the temple, causing the sacrifice and offerings to cease and tells the Pharisees to destroy the temple and he will rebuild it in three days (speaking of His body). This whole series of events is how he causes the abomination that leads to the desolation... (He knows that they are going to kill Him after that). The problem is with a lot of the arguments that I see on this subject is that they are all based on the same broken premise that the "shavui'ym" are weeks of years... If that was the true interpretation of these verses, then it would lead from Cyrus to Jesus... Since it doesn't, it cannot be true. Stay Blessed! Daniel