• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Help with Daniel's 69 weeks

37818

37818

Well-Known Member
George Antonios said:
https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/1387998218/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_image_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Quite a few that I see, but am just interested if others have considered it. Sir Robert Anderson, a very able teacher of the word, set us all on the entry, but there are some hiccups with it. Either way, all good :)
Click to expand...
Interesting. There is a second book which connects 483 years in some way. https://www.amazon.com/Chronological-Aspects-Christ-Harold-Hoehner/dp/0310262119
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
There is another major problem for a real date for Christ's birth. When did Herod really die? 4BC which is commonly held or 1BC? Unlike the the crucifixion date tied to Jewish Calendar and the plain reading of the New Testament Text. (Typically denied only by conflicting interpertations.)
 
asterisktom

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
37818 said:
I had not known that. And the BC year used was 444BC which calculates the 33AD date. [Historically and Biblical bad]
Click to expand...
May I suggest that the starting point you list is in error. Here are two of my articles on Daniel, showing why 454 BC ought to be the start date:

Old Greek History & Daniel’s Seventy Weeks
[URL='https://asterisktom.wordpress.com/2020/12/16/history-of-an-error-wrong-dates-can-lead-to-bad-theology/']History of an Error: Wrong dates can lead to Bad Theology
[/URL]
 
thomas15

thomas15

Well-Known Member
In his book Encylopedia of Biblical Prophecy by J. Barton Payne page 384-385 there is a chart which gives 4 schools of thought on Daniel 9:24-27.

For his example of the Symbolical interpretation he references a book Exposition of Daniel H.C. Leopold 1949 Wartburg Press. The chart shows that Leopold holds that "Anointed one" (i assume he means Messiah vs 26) to be the birth of Christ where in comparison the Dispensational view is the triumphal entry and the traditional view the baptism of Christ.

It's just a chart and nothing in the text about Leopold but maybe if you can find this book in a library there might be something of interest.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
asterisktom said:
May I suggest that the starting point you list is in error. Here are two of my articles on Daniel, showing why 454 BC ought to be the start date:

Old Greek History & Daniel’s Seventy Weeks
History of an Error: Wrong dates can lead to Bad Theology
Click to expand...
37818 said:
Well, there are a few issues.
1) Having a correct archaeological date for the beginning of the 69 weeks being interperted as weeks of years.
2) How the weeks of years are interperted and so to be calculated.
Click to expand...
 
robycop3

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Most other English translations read "until the Messiah comes" or similar. I believe this refers to the time He began His ministry. And I believe it was in the midst of the 70th week of years. Thus, I believe the time allotted for the rule of the beast/antichrist will be 3.5 years. The great trib will occupy a good portion of that time, but the other events prophesied to occur between the coming of the beast to power & the return of Jesus will also occur.

Seem like a short time? Think back. 3.5 years ago was the beginning of 2018, & the pandemic was unimagined, Kim Jong-Un & Pres. Trump met, as did Kim & the leader of South Korea. Those events seem 20 years old now. Yes, a LOT can-& WILL-happen in those 3.5 years!

But again, I believe it refers to the time Jesus began His ministry, as no one knew He was Messiah before then.
 
robycop3

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
37818 said:
There is another major problem for a real date for Christ's birth. When did Herod really die? 4BC which is commonly held or 1BC? Unlike the the crucifixion date tied to Jewish Calendar and the plain reading of the New Testament Text. (Typically denied only by conflicting interpertations.)
Click to expand...
I believe the main clue is it was while Quirinius was governor of the area, He left that office in 6 BC, so Jesus wasn't born any later. And 2 years had passed from his birth til the magi sought Him through Herod. When the magi slipped out, Herod had the Jewish male babies age 2 or younger murdered. Shortly after, he died, & 4 BC appears to be the best time for his death. So that makes it appear Jesus was born in 6BC by our calendar.
 
George Antonios

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
Your source for that date? The NKJV correctly translates, Luke 2:2 governing not governor.
Click to expand...

No, the NKJV wrongly translates Luke 2:2 as "governing" rather than "governor".
This is done to circumvent the "embarrassment" Luke causes us in the KJV by claiming an official position for Cyrenius (Quirinius) as governor of Syria at the time of Christ's birth, when profane history claims that Cyrenius only became governor in 6 A.D.
This is similar to MacArthur bowing to scholarship, despite the scriptures, in equating Pul and Tiglathpileser as one and the same king of Assyria (See 1Ch.5:26).
However, in the 19th century, Dr. Zumpt aptly argued that Cyrenius was governor of Syria twice.
As related by Sir Robert Anderson: “The evangelist's mention of Cyrenius appeared to be a hopeless anachronism; as, according to undoubted history, the period of his governorship and the date of his "taxing" were nine or ten years later than the nativity. Gloated over by Strauss and others of his tribe, and dismissed by writers unnumbered either as enigma or an error, the passage has in recent years been vindicated and explained the labors of Dr. Zumpt of Berlin. By a strange chance there is a break in the history of this period, for the seven or eight years beginning B.C.4. The list of the governors of Syria, therefore, fails us, and for the same interval P. Sulpicius Quirinus, the Cyrenius of the Greeks, disappears from history. But by a series of separate investigations and arguments, all or them independent of Scripture, Dr. Zumpt has established that Quirinus was twice governor of the province, and that his first term of office dated from the latter part B.C. 4, when he succeeded Quinctilius Varus. The unanimity with which this conclusion has been accepted renders it unnecessary to discuss the matter here. But one remark respecting it may not be out of place. The grounds of Dr. Zumpt’s conclusions may be aptly described as a chain of circumstantial evidence, and his critics are agreed that the result is reasonably certain.[1]”
“Dr. Zumpt's labors in this matter were first made public in a Latin treatise which appeared in 1854. More recently he has published them in his Das Geburtsjahr Christi (Leipzig, 1869). The English reader will find a summary of his arguments in Dean Alford's Greek Test (Note on Luke 2:1), and in his article, on Cyrenius in Smith's Bible Dict.; he describes them as ‘very striking and satisfactory’. Dr. Farrar remarks, ‘Zumpt has, with incredible industry and research, all but established in this matter the accuracy of St. Luke, by proving the extreme probability that Quirinus was twice governor of Syria’ (Life of Christ, vol. 1. p. 7, note). See also an article in the Quarterly Review for April 1871, which describes Zumpt's conclusions as ‘very nearly certain’, ‘all but certain’. The question is discussed also in Wieseler's Chron. Syn. (Venables's trans.) In his Roman history, Mr. Merivale adopts these results unreservedly. He says (vol. 4., p. 457), ‘A remarkable light has been thrown upon the point by the demonstration, as it seems to be, of Augustus Zumpt in his second volume of Commentationes Epigraphicae, that Quirinus (the Cyrenius of St. Luke 2.) was first governor of Syria from the close of A. U. 750 (B. C. 4) , to A. U. 753 (B. C. 1).”[2]

Thus the KJV wording is more accurate, and the NKJV wording is an unfortunate translation.


[1] Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince, Fifth Edition, ch.8, p.58

[2] Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince, Fifth Edition, ch.8, p.61, footnote #3.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top