Daniel 8

[Dave Watchman]

On 3/12/2016 at 3:26 PM, ARGOSY said:

Interesting. But I'm not even close to being convinced of your view on the 2300 of Daniel 8.  Yes the decree to restore Jerusalem was around 457 BC but that was not a stopping of sacrifices and 1844 was not a reconsecration of the sanctuary. 

I prefer the Antiochus Epiphanes view, of the 2300 evenings and mornings during which a king from one of the 4 Greek kingdoms desecrated the temple for 1150 days, stopping sacrifices for 2300 evenings and mornings until the sanctuary was reconsecrated.

That sounds reasonable to me as the Antiochus Epiphanes view has been around for a long long time. I'm sure that the old time Jews hated his guts and this may have allowed some bias to enter into the writings of Josephus. But I don't think that the little horn will come from one of the 4 Greek kingdoms.

"there came up four conspicuous horns toward:

--->the four winds of heaven.

"Out of one of them --->(the four winds of heaven)

"came a little horn,

The little horn comes from one of "the four winds of heaven" because we're no longer talking about earthly kingdoms, we're talking about direction..

"which grew exceedingly great toward the south,

"toward the east,

"and toward the glorious land.(which is west).

Daniel 8s little horn is our end time Antichrist, who like other OT destroyers, comes from the north.

The important thing to figure out first is that the 2300 evenings and mornings are 2300 years and that they share the same starting point as the 70 weeks which is 457 BC. Because the one holy one said to another:

“For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?” And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.”

This is just like asking: when is the little horn going to appear? And if it's after 1844, then it means that it can't be Antiochus Epiphanes.

So if you agree that the 70weeks are 490 years, for the purpose of our discussion, it makes no difference whether a week is a heptad, a seven or a week of days equaling years. 

Daniel fell ill at the end of chapter 8, so when chapter 9 began years latter it was a continuation of the earlier "vision".

From Daniel 9:

"while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the first, came to me in swift flight"

And Gabriel confirms this:

"At the beginning of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly loved. Therefore consider the word and understand the vision.

There is no vision in Daniel 9. The "vision" that they are referring to is the "vision" from the previous chapter 8, the 2300 evenings and mornings.

◄ 2852. chathak ►
Strong's Concordance
chathak: to divide, determine
Original Word: חָתַך
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: chathak
Phonetic Spelling: (khaw-thak')
Short Definition: decreed

Brown-Driver-Briggs
 [חָתַךְ] verb divide, determine (Late Hebrew id., cut, cut off, decide, so Aramaic חתך Pa`el, Ethpa`al) — only

Niph`al Perfect שָֽׁבֻעִים שִׁבְעִים נֶחְתַּךְ עַלעַֿמְּךָ Daniel 9:24 seventy weeks are determined upon thy people.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
determine A primitive root; properly, to cut off, i.e. (figuratively) to decree -- determine.

The 1832 edition of Gesenius gives the meaning of  chathak as "determine," "to destine," and in Chaldee "to cut," "decide." But the 1846 edition renders it "to cut" "to divide," also "to decree," "to determine."  The Student's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary of 1914 gives "to cut, to decide, to determine, to decree," and Rotherham in his  Emphasized Bible stresses the meaning "divide."

“Seventy weeks are decreed"

“Seventy weeks are chathak"

“Seventy weeks are "cut off"

The 70 weeks are 490 years of time. Time can only be "cut off" from time. I can't cut 70 weeks off from a tree. And I can't cut 490 years off from 70 years. 70 weeks or 490 years can only be cut off from a larger portion of time. Would it make any sense for the 70 week period to be cut off from just any time in general? In the vision from chapter 8 the 2300 days was left out there hanging or unexplained.

If Daniel 9 really is the explanation or continuation of the unexplained portion of the previous vision, it doesn't surprise me that the explanation would include another time component. The only prophetic time mentioned in Daniel 9 is the 70 weeks. Would it be too big of a stretch to consider that when Gabriel deals with the 490 years, or 70 weeks, he is referring to the first part of the 2300 day prophecy? Could this period (490 years) have been cut off from the larger 2300 year prophetic time period to give Daniel's people one last chance:

• 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 70 weeks would be "cut off" from the 2300 'erab and boger to let the Daniel's people have their sanctuary on earth; then the remaining period of the 2300 years would then transfer into the Christian church period, with the sanctuary now in heaven where Jesus is our High Priest.

You know the True Tent? The one not made with human hands?

"And he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—>but by no human hand.

Prince of princes is Jesus, right?

How can Antiochus Epiphanes cause the Prince of princes any trouble?  Antiochus Epiphanes was just a punk, Steven Seagal could take him no problemo.

“Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end.”

[Kan]

On 3/14/2016 at 6:45 PM, ARGOSY said:

Most of these objections are already covered in this thread. The books of Maccabbees were not included in the bible, yet these are very significant books in Jewish history which include the story of Antiochus and clearly dates the 1150 days of the desecration of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Jews see Antiochus as the fulfilment of Daniel 8. The prophecy in Daniel 8 refers to 2300  "EVENINGS AND MORNINGS" which is 1150 days.

 I agree that the stopping of sacrifices occurred in the middle of the last seven, but the last 3.5 years show no historical fulfilment. Dan 9v24 is not fulfilled 3.5 years after the crucifixion, as it should be. No abomination is found at the time of the crucifixion.  The Jewish period doctrinally stopped at the crucifixion which opened the way for Gentile salvation. Jews no longer held exclusivity over the true religion from the crucifixion, anything else is doctrinally incorrect. The Jewish period stopped then.   Yet the bible refers to a future 3.5 year Jewish period. The lack of fulfilment of Dan 9:24 points to future period when all this is completed, the second coming being a better fit with the finalisation of the 490 year period as described in verse 24.

Regarding Antiochus being greater, the bible verse does NOT say that this horn was greater than the ram and the goat. Its open to interpretation. I read it as greater than the other 3 horns of the goat. The goat represents Greece  "the rough goat is the king of Grecia" and the 4 horns are the four Greek divisions after Alexander died. The Seleucid Empire was the greatest of these four divisions. It exceeded the other 3. Antiochus was the most expansive , conquering even Egypt. 

⁸ Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

⁹ And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

I am not diminishing the antichrist, he is clearly referred to in Daniel 7, not from the Greek kingdom, but from the Roman kingdom. He is also mentioned in Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 11:36-45. So there is more about the antichrist than Antiochus in the books of Daniel.

Thanks for clearing a couple of things up there, I have a better idea of what you have found. I think if we discussed this in person, we could cover these topics with more ease.

I thought that the 490 years ended with the first martyr by the Jews - the stoning of Steven, witnessed by a man called Saul, who became Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles. that was in 34 AD 3.5 years after the crucifixion.

[Kan]

On 3/15/2016 at 10:41 AM, Dave Watchman said:

...

“Seventy weeks are "cut off"

The 70 weeks are 490 years of time. Time can only be "cut off" from time. I can't cut 70 weeks off from a tree. And I can't cut 490 years off from 70 years. 70 weeks or 490 years can only be cut off from a larger portion of time. Would it make any sense for the 70 week period to be cut off from just any time in general? In the vision from chapter 8 the 2300 days was left out there hanging or unexplained.

If Daniel 9 really is the explanation or continuation of the unexplained portion of the previous vision, it doesn't surprise me that the explanation would include another time component. The only prophetic time mentioned in Daniel 9 is the 70 weeks. Would it be too big of a stretch to consider that when Gabriel deals with the 490 years, or 70 weeks, he is referring to the first part of the 2300 day prophecy? Could this period (490 years) have been cut off from the larger 2300 year prophetic time period to give Daniel's people one last chance:

• 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 70 weeks would be "cut off" from the 2300 'erab and boger to let the Daniel's people have their sanctuary on earth; then the remaining period of the 2300 years would then transfer into the Christian church period, with the sanctuary now in heaven where Jesus is our High Priest.

You know the True Tent? The one not made with human hands?

"And he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—>but by no human hand.

Prince of princes is Jesus, right?

How can Antiochus Epiphanes cause the Prince of princes any trouble?  Antiochus Epiphanes was just a punk, Steven Seagal could take him no problemo.

“Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end.”

I have not heard the term "cut off" used for the 70 weeks, but it is interesting that this wording connects it with the understanding of the vision of the 2300 days. 

It is not in conflict with the meaning of "determined," which in the plain English context means "assigned" or "set [apart]," or "prescribed." So I accept that, especially because "cut off" suggests a portion of the greater as you suggested.

 

 

[ARGOSY]

 

9 hours ago, Kan said:

Thanks for clearing a couple of things up there, I have a better idea of what you have found. I think if we discussed this in person, we could cover these topics with more ease.

I thought that the 490 years ended with the first martyr by the Jews - the stoning of Steven, witnessed by a man called Saul, who became Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles. that was in 34 AD 3.5 years after the crucifixion.

 

Pleasure. What you are stating here is the standard historical/preterist position. Although I do agree with them on Jesus' fulfilling the covenant, for what greater covenant was there in history than the promised Messiah? I agree that Jesus ministry was 3.5 years long, that is common knowledge and supported by scripture. I agree that Jesus put an end to sacrifice and offering through being the FINAL lamb sacrifice, what better ending of sacrifices than the last sacrificial lamb? So up until then I take the historical position.

But since then, Matthew 24 clearly associates the abomination of Daniel with the second coming. Making it future. And the final dramatic expectation of Daniel 9:24 has a better fulfilment in the second coming, than in the stoning of Peter. This stoning has no definite date, people just hope it occurred 3.5 years after the crucifixion with no proof thereof.  There was no clear abomination occurring at the time of the crucifixion, and yet Daniel 9 pts the ending of sacrifices together with the abomination.  Also Jesus describes it as a great recogniseable event, what was the abomination then if it occurred historically at the time of the crucifixion? 

So scripture itself seems to be pointing to a gap...... not at year 483 as traditionally claimed by futurists, but at year 486.5 of the 490 year period.   The crucifixion made way for the Gentiles, and the great commission focusses on the Gentiles. When the great commission is complete when we have the fullness of the Gentile nations, then the final period is dedicated to Jewish salvation (Romans 11:25). Even Rev 12 indicates a special final period of 3.5 years for Jews. So the Jewish timeline kicks in again at the abomination which starts the Great Tribulation. 

This is why I am relatively unique in claiming a 3.5 year tribulation, believing the bible never even hints at a 7 year trib as claimed by dispensationalists.

 

 

[Kan]

10 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Pleasure. What you are stating here is the standard historical/preterist position. Although I do agree with them on Jesus' fulfilling the covenant, for what greater covenant was there in history than the promised Messiah? I agree that Jesus ministry was 3.5 years long, that is common knowledge and supported by scripture. I agree that Jesus put an end to sacrifice and offering through being the FINAL lamb sacrifice, what better ending of sacrifices than the last sacrificial lamb? So up until then I take the historical position.

But since then, Matthew 24 clearly associates the abomination of Daniel with the second coming. Making it future. And the final dramatic expectation of Daniel 9:24 has a better fulfilment in the second coming, than in the stoning of Peter. This stoning has no definite date, people just hope it occurred 3.5 years after the crucifixion with no proof thereof.  There was no clear abomination occurring at the time of the crucifixion, and yet Daniel 9 pts the ending of sacrifices together with the abomination.  Also Jesus describes it as a great recogniseable event, what was the abomination then if it occurred historically at the time of the crucifixion? 

So scripture itself seems to be pointing to a gap...... not at year 483 as traditionally claimed by futurists, but at year 486.5 of the 490 year period.   The crucifixion made way for the Gentiles, and the great commission focusses on the Gentiles. When the great commission is complete when we have the fullness of the Gentile nations, then the final period is dedicated to Jewish salvation (Romans 11:25). Even Rev 12 indicates a special final period of 3.5 years for Jews. So the Jewish timeline kicks in again at the abomination which starts the Great Tribulation. 

This is why I am relatively unique in claiming a 3.5 year tribulation, believing the bible never even hints at a 7 year trib as claimed by dispensationalists.

Yes, the abomination was future to the time of Christ. And yes, the Bible does not mention a 7 year trib.

A 1260 year period, is 3.5 prophetic years, or 1260 days/years.

Paul talked about it as the mystery of iniquity, and said that it was already at work in his day. But the wickedness of the Jewish nation in departing from the Lord, even back in Daniel's time, would strengthen up to the time of the Messiah and then get worse, culminating by gaining political power, through the emperor of Rome. 

Daniel places the dark ages before the end of the 2300 years. The 1290 years, include the 30 years of its set up to its end. And the 1335 years bring us to the end of the 2300 years.

The "deadly wound" of the beast has been "healed," and the world wonders after the beast, all the kingdoms pay homage to it again, even those countries which were supposed to be established on the grounds of religious freedom, have welcomed its representative after all these years. Now the AC will work again for the final time, it gets one more ride, but a very short one.

So the old prophecies which cover every major world rule, point right down to the end of time, and cannot be called historical yet.

[Kan]

I've just read Matt 24, and it seems like the abomination of desolation is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army under Titus? I understand that the desolation is spoken of by Moses as the results of rejecting God, caused by abominations - the worship of other gods and the forsaking of the Lord.

Were not the disciples warned of the surrounding of armies of Jerusalem?

The Roman army carried banners of the sun - sun-god and possibly a cross. Sun worship was condemned as an abomination in Ezekiel, a contemporary prophet of Daniel. This would have been a sign to the disciples. ?

[ARGOSY]

1 hour ago, Kan said:

I've just read Matt 24, and it seems like the abomination of desolation is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army under Titus? I understand that the desolation is spoken of by Moses as the results of rejecting God, caused by abominations - the worship of other gods and the forsaking of the Lord.

Were not the disciples warned of the surrounding of armies of Jerusalem?

The Roman army carried banners of the sun - sun-god and possibly a cross. Sun worship was condemned as an abomination in Ezekiel, a contemporary prophet of Daniel. This would have been a sign to the disciples. ?

 

If you are correct on the timing of the abomination occurring around 70AD , this would completely ruin the timeline that you have already proposed. You proposed that the 490 year timeline finishes around 34 AD (stoning).  If the 70th week finished then, how can you place the abomination outside the 70th week?

Also if you place the abomination at 70AD , around 40 years AFTER the crucifixion, this puts a gap in the timeline. Then do you honestly think that the following is fulfilled around 73/74 AD??  :

²⁴ “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness,to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place

Also if you place the abomination around 70 AD then Daniel 12 predicts 1335 days from the abomination until the blessing.  Did any blessing occur to Israel 1335 days or years later after 70AD?  Your day=year view would then place the blessing in 1405 AD.  What occurred around then? 

[Kan]

3 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

 

If you are correct on the timing of the abomination occurring around 70AD , this would completely ruin the timeline that you have already proposed. You proposed that the 490 year timeline finishes around 34 AD (stoning).  If the 70th week finished then, how can you place the abomination outside the 70th week?

Also if you place the abomination at 70AD , around 40 years AFTER the crucifixion, this puts a gap in the timeline. Then do you honestly think that the following is fulfilled around 73/74 AD??  :

²⁴ “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness,to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place

Also if you place the abomination around 70 AD then Daniel 12 predicts 1335 days from the abomination until the blessing.  Did any blessing occur to Israel 1335 days or years later after 70AD?  Your day=year view would then place the blessing in 1405 AD.  What occurred around then? 

Do you think that the transgression of Israel is the abomination of desolation? If you do, then I understand why you are confused by what I keep saying, because then, of course the abomination belongs to the 490 years.

I think there is every good reason why you are right here. Let me check it out over the next couple of days and I may be able to have something congruent to say. You have made your point about this several times, sorry I'm a bit thick sometimes.

[ARGOSY]

4 minutes ago, Kan said:

Do you think that the transgression of Israel is the abomination of desolation? If you do, then I understand why you are confused by what I keep saying, because then, of course the abomination belongs to the 490 years.

I think there is every good reason why you are right here. Let me check it out over the next couple of days and I may be able to have something congruent to say. You have made your point about this several times, sorry I'm a bit thick sometimes.

Sorry , I do repeat myself, please be patient with me

I don't know the phrase "the transgression of Israel". Have you got a bible verse for me?     I believe the abomination is closely connected to Israel and the antichrist.   Its possible that the grand opening of the rebuilt temple and the revealing of the antichrist occur at the same time, as described in 2 Thessalonians 2. Both events will be abominable/evil.

 

[Kan]

2 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Sorry , I do repeat myself, please be patient with me

I don't know the phrase "the transgression of Israel". Have you got a bible verse for me?     I believe the abomination is closely connected to Israel and the antichrist.   Its possible that the grand opening of the rebuilt temple and the revealing of the antichrist occur at the same time, as described in 2 Thessalonians 2. Both events will be abominable/evil.

 

No, I just assumed that the transgression referred to in the text you quoted was the sins of Israel?