WHY AN INVESTIGATIVE JUDGEMENT, AND WHEN?

gillespie9669 · Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:24 pm Post subject:

WAS THE START OF THE 2300 YEARS 444 B.C. OR 457 B.C.- Part 2

THE CLEAR CONNECTION BETWEEN DANIEL 8 AND 9

I found it rather interesting that at least one opposer of "1844" using this forum had the insight to see that Daniel 9 :25 and 26 clearly show at least two personalities, namely, an enemy power called just "the prince" (specific) that "shall come and destroy" , and another figure called "a Messiah, the Prince" (without the definate article). Now I found this, while, on the one hand, being a little amusing coming from him (the reason for my amusement will soon be apparent), it also being a good place to start this post to show how Daniel 8 and 9 are intimately connected, and why both the "70 weeks" of years, and the " 2300 days" of years should both begin in 457 B.C. See also (or again) my thread on, "Antiochus and All That" (under the subheading about the error of not seeing Daniel 8 and 9 as connected).

Daniel 8 ended with Daniel, while an exile in Babylon (during the closing days of Babylon's world dominion), contemplating, but "astonished" over the vision given to him in that chapter. He distinctly declared at the end of that chapter that, "NONE understood it" (Dan. 8:27). Now it is certain that it could not mean ALL portions of the vision was not understood, since the explanation of what the "ram" kingdom or empire (Medo-Persia), the he-goat empire (Greece), "the he-goat's first horn" (fist phase of Greece's empire under Alexander), "the later four horns" (divided Geece), and the little horn (Anti-Christ power) were to be was given. So what aspect bothered him most? Obviously the time given in Daniel 8:14, since he started to enquire about earlier time prophecies given in Jeremiah as it concerned Israel and the sanctuary.

Evidently he wondered if there was a connection, and when exactly would the events in this "vision" begin. Could the earthly Jewish sanctuary, still in ruins at this time, be now ready for restoration, since it was prophecied (from Dan. 8) that some sanctuary or the other (related to God's people) would be "cleansed"?.

He must have reasoned: If it was the sanctuary in earthly Jerusalem that was to be the focus of this prophecy, then it certainly must first be re-built, and his people as a nation restored before this FUTURE desecration, desolation and "cleansing" of it could ever happen. That was only logical. Thus he took heart in the fact that the 70 years of punishment earlier prophesied by Jeremiah must now be coming to a close, and proceeded to pray to Jehovah over the matter of his peoples sins, and for God to restore Israel.
That is how Daniel 9 started, and its connection to Daniel 8 is "set like concrete before my feet". NO POWER ON EARTH CAN CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE, SINCE THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE IN DANIEL IS SO COMPELLING!!!

Notice from Daniel 9:20- 27 that the angel just simply returned to give "understanding" of "THE vision". Now if there is one thing that no one can ever adequately disprove (at least to me) is that the use here of the specific article, "the" in circumstances like these (where no other vision existed between chapters 8 and 9) MUST then be a clear reference to an earlier matter already referred to or known of.

Let me illustrate in simple terms. If I say to you, In THE thread on "Antiochus, and All that" you will see such, and such, then it is painfully evident that I take it for granted you already know what thread I am talking about, or it already exists, and I can refer to it with the article "the" because it was already written, and, or you already know about it.

Now let us translate this in terms even a kindergarten would understand. The angel returned (Daniel 9:21), THE SAME ONE SEEN IN THE VISION EARLIER (a few years before) and just launched into an EXPLANATION- "CONSIDER THE VISION"!! Which vision? Daniel understood perfectly. The angel simply meant, "Now understand aspects of the vision given earlier".

Only delusion fails to see this simple truth, or intellectual stubborness, and Satanic twisting of Holy Writ declares otherwise.

The angel then abrubtly started to explain TIME matters to be considered from "THE VISION" in which he earlier appeared to Daniel.

Notice carefully now how he was able to just also refer to the "the people of THE prince [or "ruler", "king" literally] that shall come" to destroy Isreal, that is, after he had just referred to the the "Messiah" (another figure) that was to be "cut of". Why? THAT TOO WAS ALSO IN THE EARLIER VISION!! It was the "little horn" power (the enemy power working though its own "people"), and not the "Messiah", in that instance, that "would come" to destroy the sanctuary (and be on the scene when the TRUE "abomination of desolation" would be visited upon Israel (See again Matthew 24:15).

So even the oposition unwittingly proves the connection of the two chapters (Smile ).
See how all this ties in with Rome (pagan and papal) if the explantion of "70 weeks" (483 prophetic years) brings us down to the TRUE MESSIAH (and the Roman period in which Jesus referred to the FUTURE "abomination of desolation spoken of by [the same] Daniel")? God help us all to see it.

Notice then in Daniel 9:24 how the angel just abruptly said "70 Weeks" (of years) are chathak for thy people. The word "chathak" (used only once in Holy Writ) is proven by the best research into the ancient text to mean "cut off", "amputated", "divided" (see Gesenius), as well as "determined" and "decreed".

Translators will only apply the best meaning here when they see the connection between Daniel 8:14 and Daniel 9:24. So this Bible student (Mr Gillespie) makes his own choice of the BEST meaning to apply here, by looking at the range of meanings of the word, chathak, as well as the internal evidence in Daniel as to which meaning best to apply; I am not misguided by translators who impose their own feeling upon the text without me seeing the interanal evidence in support.

With that now being said, it is easy to see that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to "cut of" or "amputate" 490 years ("70 weeks" of prophetic years) from just 1150 or even 2300 literal days (as defended by the preterists). It only possible to "cut off" 490 years from 2300 years, FOR THE NATION OF ISRAEL. It is therefore rock solid logic to see both periods having the same beginning point.

Now we can proceed to see when the "70 weeks" of years (Daniel 9) would begin, since the 2300 years period also begin the same time.

THE YEAR 457 B.C IS THE TRUE BEGINNING POINT!!

As was shown earlier (the previous post), some contend that the "70 weeks" of years in Daniel 9:24,25 should begin in 444 B.C because it was a clear year when Artaxerxes gave the final command to "rebuild" Jerusalem; and not 457 B,C. when another type of command was given.
I have clearly shown how this would upset the Messiah prophecy (VERY UNTHINKABLE!!) and thus we must enquire:

1. Was a command given in 457 B.C.?
2. What was this command all about?

*Please note that the double-dated "Kraeling 6" papyrus, and another found on the island of Elephantine (in a Jewish garrison town) are proof enough of the accuracy of these two dates, 444 B.C and 457 B.C. (instead of 445 and 458 B.C. respectively, given as alternate dates by some commentators).

First, I must hasten to say that the prophetic words in Daniel 9:26 speak of TWO (2) things signalling the beginning point of the time prophecy under consideration. Notice carefully that its is "the commandment [or decree- SINGULAR!!] to [1] restore and [2] build Jerusalem" AS A WHOLE (probably representative of the nation itself); NOT JUST THE TEMPLE BUILDING.

Since the words "restore" (shub) and "'build" (banah) are different in the Hebrew, then we realise that we must look for two things to be commanded- [1] FIRST, A SOCIAL RESTORATION OF JEWISH LIFE IN ALL ITS FORMS.
[1] AND ACCOMPANYING THAT, AN ARCHITCHTURAL REBUILDING OF JERUSALEM (OBVIOUSLY INCLUDING THE TEMPLE ALSO).

This is so often overlooked. This is usually the first blunder of the opposition, when contending against 1844. The oposition usually totally ignore the first KEY word in Daniel 9:26, that is, "restore" ("shub"), which is broader in meaning than the word "rebuild" ("banah"). And that is why both were used. Rebuilding Jerusalem was just a part of the RESTORATION OF JEWISH LIFE after Babylonian exile. That is a rock solid truth that no one can overturn.

AND THAT ALONE EFFECTIVELY SHOWS WHY EZRA 7 ALONG WITH EZRA 6:14, AND EZRA 9:9, ARE THE SIGNAL TEXTS TO SUGGEST WHEN DANIEL'S 9:26 TIME PROPHECY WAS TO BEGIN. Why? Because Ezra 6:14 is the only place EXPLAINING the Providential threefold command (seen by the Bible itself as one command from God) to rebuild the temple itself (the focus of the city), and then Ezra 7:25 outlines the command FINALLY given to "restore" ("shub") full Jewish life under its own goverment; and not just "rebuild" ("banah") Jerusalem. Why omit the most important parts of the Ezra 7 decree, which is that the Jews got the right of autonomy (self-government), with judges and magistrates to enforce their laws; FULL RESTORATION. Why hide this fact?

Notice that the Bible said "from the going forth of the command to RESTORE... Jerusalem", that is, when first given as a unit (and when both the criteria of "restoring" Jewish life, and the "rebuilding" the city would have been fully met) .

From what year and what decree (the decree "to restore and rebuild Jerusalem") are we to begin to count the number of years until Messiah? There are four possibilities to consider.

First, it could not be Cyrus’ edict issued in 539 B.C. though his command referred to the rebuilding of the temple and not literally to the city AS A WHOLE. But remember the temple is the hearthrob of the city itself and signals the restoration of Israel itself, including Jerusalem. God Himself saw the matter this way:

gillespie9669 · Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:08 am Post subject:

A REVIEW OF THE LIST OF CHALLENGES/OBJECTIONS TO 1844 (Quick Re-cap).

Dear reader,
I do think that I have done justice so far to the challenges posed. But before I bring this matter to a close, let me do a quick recap. The challenges responded to so far, are as follows:

gillespie9669 · Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 5:48 am Post subject: CLOSING ARGUMENTS- Part 1

gillespie9669 · Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:01 am Post subject:

DID JESUS MOVE TO ANOTHER SANCTUARY APARTMENT IN 1844?
-Part 2 ( A Review, and Further Discussion)

In my last post I said, in part:

gillespie9669 · Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 4:53 am Post subject:

CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND SUMMARY.

Before I close on the last point under consideration (see below), you may have realized that this discourse leaned heavily on dispelling the erroneous view that Antiochus Epiphanes was the TRUE “little horn” of Daniel 8. Why is this a most relevant matter? It is a most relevant matter because, if Antiochus was this “horn”, then the 2300 days in Daniel 8:14 (whether interpreted as approximately 3.5, or over 6 years literally; depending on the preteristic school of interpretation) this TIME prophecy then would have had no REAL further application beyond his time. However, if the “little horn” was Rome, and the 2300 days were indeed to be interpreted as years, then this is the only road on which anyone can travel in arriving at, and understanding the relevance of 1844. I think ‘SOLID AS A ROCK’ is the evidence of Rome being the “little horn” (of Daniel 7 and 8), and the evidence that the “vision” of Daniel 8 (Daniel 8:13,14 and expanded on in Daniel 9) was to cover a period starting in the Medo-Persian period and extending beyond Jesus’ time as far as 1844 (including the arrival of the TRUE “abomination of desolation” of the persecuting Roman power in A.D. 70; see Matt. 24:15). And this, more than anything else convinces me of the relevance of 1844.
Now let me close by addressing the final point of contention I referred to in a list of “challenges” earlier in this thread.