AnnOMaly: half-full or half-empty? :) The picture of Jerusalem in Haggai, Zechariah and the first part of Ezra which focuses on the temple is positive (at least from 515 on); the later picture in Nehemiah is mostly negative down to the building of the walls and further repopulation, and this is true of Daniel 9 for an even extended period ("and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time," v. 25).
Narkissos
JoinedPosts by Narkissos
-
27
70 weeks - Xerxes, Artaxerxes: How weak is the WT position cmp. to 607?
by bohm inso, in my bible study i can see we are approaching chapter 4 of "what does the bible really teach" about daniels profecy.
the book says: "another example is about the profecy of daniel 9:25, a profecy which many centuries in advance predicted exactly when messias would appear - in the year 29".
there is a small appendix which ties this up to wether artaxerxes 20th year was in 455bc (455bc + 7x69weeks, ie.
-
-
-
27
70 weeks - Xerxes, Artaxerxes: How weak is the WT position cmp. to 607?
by bohm inso, in my bible study i can see we are approaching chapter 4 of "what does the bible really teach" about daniels profecy.
the book says: "another example is about the profecy of daniel 9:25, a profecy which many centuries in advance predicted exactly when messias would appear - in the year 29".
there is a small appendix which ties this up to wether artaxerxes 20th year was in 455bc (455bc + 7x69weeks, ie.
-
-
Narkissos
bohm: just to clarify, the temple was actually rebuilt in 515 BC (Darius' 6 year, Ezra 6:15). As far as the chronology of Artaxerxes' reign is concerned (which I believe is not the starting point of the 70 weeks of Daniel), I'm no expert in chronology but Jonsson's rebuttal to the WT claims seem rather convincing and easy enough to follow...
-
27
70 weeks - Xerxes, Artaxerxes: How weak is the WT position cmp. to 607?
by bohm inso, in my bible study i can see we are approaching chapter 4 of "what does the bible really teach" about daniels profecy.
the book says: "another example is about the profecy of daniel 9:25, a profecy which many centuries in advance predicted exactly when messias would appear - in the year 29".
there is a small appendix which ties this up to wether artaxerxes 20th year was in 455bc (455bc + 7x69weeks, ie.
-
-
Narkissos
AnnOMaly: the rebuilding of Jerusalem had already started nearly a century before 445 (Haggai blames the returnees for having built their own houses before the temple!)... but more importantly, the whole context of Daniel 9 suggests that the period had started even before that. Not only is the story set before the end of the exile, and if the angel's reply has anything to do with Daniel's request it includes the whole process of reconstruction which was just about to begin rather than just some later stage (the walls and further construction) as described in Nehemiah. The whole 70 weeks of years is a reinterpretation and development of Jeremiah's 70 years (v. 2: 70 x 7, according to the sevenfold pattern of curses in Leviticus 26), which have started even earlier. Daniel is asking when the current period of desolation (which is already under way) will truly end; the revelation is that it will last seven times longer than expected; neither the reconstruction of the temple and the city, nor that of the walls will really put it to an end. Worse things are yet to come before its completion.
-
27
70 weeks - Xerxes, Artaxerxes: How weak is the WT position cmp. to 607?
by bohm inso, in my bible study i can see we are approaching chapter 4 of "what does the bible really teach" about daniels profecy.
the book says: "another example is about the profecy of daniel 9:25, a profecy which many centuries in advance predicted exactly when messias would appear - in the year 29".
there is a small appendix which ties this up to wether artaxerxes 20th year was in 455bc (455bc + 7x69weeks, ie.
-
-
Narkissos
bohm: good you have found the page which probably best deals with your specific question; too bad the alternative "Messianic" interpretation offered at the end is not really better...
Just found this thread which might be of interest: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/154817/1/When-was-Daniels-70-Weeks-first-applied-to-Jesus
-
27
70 weeks - Xerxes, Artaxerxes: How weak is the WT position cmp. to 607?
by bohm inso, in my bible study i can see we are approaching chapter 4 of "what does the bible really teach" about daniels profecy.
the book says: "another example is about the profecy of daniel 9:25, a profecy which many centuries in advance predicted exactly when messias would appear - in the year 29".
there is a small appendix which ties this up to wether artaxerxes 20th year was in 455bc (455bc + 7x69weeks, ie.
-
-
Narkissos
Btw, the 20th year of Artaxerxes (by Nehemiah 2:1) has nothing to do with the reconstruction of the temple nor the city (which is what the "word" starting the 70 weeks in Daniel 9 is about) but the walls of Jerusalem. The temple had already been rebuilt 70 years before that.
-
27
70 weeks - Xerxes, Artaxerxes: How weak is the WT position cmp. to 607?
by bohm inso, in my bible study i can see we are approaching chapter 4 of "what does the bible really teach" about daniels profecy.
the book says: "another example is about the profecy of daniel 9:25, a profecy which many centuries in advance predicted exactly when messias would appear - in the year 29".
there is a small appendix which ties this up to wether artaxerxes 20th year was in 455bc (455bc + 7x69weeks, ie.
-
-
Narkissos
This topic has been extensively discussed here in the past; unfortunately, without a real search function you can just pray for somebody to remember where... :(
In short, I would say the problem of 455 is a bit more complex than 607 because applying the 70 weeks of years to the coming of THE (Christian) Messiah is not an exclusive JW doctrine (even though it goes against the clear meaning of the text imo). The WT is on this boat with a number of Evangelical commentators (mostly from the 19th- / early 20th-century) who have built similar theories and found the same interest in attacking the "mainstream" Persian chronology; so they have a number of arguments and quotes to offer against it (cf. the Insight book on "Persia"), which makes the issue anything but simple for a non-specialist. The big picture, though, you have already gathered: circular confirmation of a fanciful interpretation with highly questionable dates at both ends (btw, how come no NT writer thought of this wonderful argument to confirm Jesus as the Messiah?)
-
55
Love, Justice, Wisdom, Power - the Resurrection
by xelder ini have always been taught and believed that, at the end of the day, god is a perfect balance of love, justice, wisdom, and power.
when the ransom provision and christ's kingdom correct man's fall into sin, we will see this as true, no matter what trials we and all of mankind have had to face until then.
honestly, it has never mattered which of the two groups i was in.
-
-
Narkissos
The rhetorics of Romans 9--11 must be considered as a whole. What is said in chapter 9 about election and rejection is clearly situated in chapter 11:11-36 as historical and provisional, as a (freely chosen) means to a(n) (freely chosen) end. Taking chapter 9, the first part of this section (which is all --not just the conclusion! -- about mankind as consisting of two categories, Jews and Gentiles) as a general teaching on individual and eternal election/reprobation goes against the context and the entire Pauline argument.
DD: I have no idea what you mean by: "So, they are all Israel, which are of Israel?"
-
55
Love, Justice, Wisdom, Power - the Resurrection
by xelder ini have always been taught and believed that, at the end of the day, god is a perfect balance of love, justice, wisdom, and power.
when the ransom provision and christ's kingdom correct man's fall into sin, we will see this as true, no matter what trials we and all of mankind have had to face until then.
honestly, it has never mattered which of the two groups i was in.
-
-
Narkissos
DD:
So the potter has no freedom over the clay (Romans 9)?
From a purely logical perspective, the freedom of a decision a priori has nothing to do with what is decided a posteriori. Whether God (even from a binary Calvinist perspective) decides to save no one or few or many or all, his decision is free. (God's freedom is probably the major lesson Barth retained from Calvin, at least in the first part of his career.)
From a scriptural perspective, the weakness of Calvin's exegesis of Romans 9 is that it reads the issue of individual and final/eternal election/reprobation into a text which is a theological account of the history of salvation -- where rejection is explicitly not final.
So what does Barth's view do with faith (as far as giving it to whom God pleases)? It would negate faith's role(as a gift) in the equation, wouldn't it?
Saving faith in the reformed tradition to which Barth belongs is objective rather than subjective, and collective -- given to the church -- rather than strictly individual (a perspective which is often lost in modern individualistic Evangelicalism). The church believes for the worlds' salvation so to say.
-
5
Daniel 12, what is the JW view of the 1290 and 1335 days?
by digderidoo in1 at that time michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise.
there will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then.
but at that time your people everyone whose name is found written in the book will be delivered.. 2 multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.. 3 those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.. 4 but you, daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end.
-
-
Narkissos
Lamest? Don't be hasty. There's also the 2,300 evenings and mornings from June 1 OR 15, 1938 to October 8 OR 22, 1944.
-
55
Love, Justice, Wisdom, Power - the Resurrection
by xelder ini have always been taught and believed that, at the end of the day, god is a perfect balance of love, justice, wisdom, and power.
when the ransom provision and christ's kingdom correct man's fall into sin, we will see this as true, no matter what trials we and all of mankind have had to face until then.
honestly, it has never mattered which of the two groups i was in.
-
-
Narkissos
I come back here from Sad Emo's thread which is, after all, about the same general topic, only from a subjective standpoint which I find most interesting and do not want to hijack with "objective" theological considerations.
Another essential aspect of Barth's post-Calvinist soteriology which I forgot to mention is the following: Christ is not only the one ultimate Elect in whom all are elect (i.e. justified and saved).He is also the one ultimate Reprobate in whom all are reprobate (i.e. judged and condemned). Or, more exactly, penultimate inasmuch as God's "No" in Christ is his "second" and "next-to-last word" as it were. The first and last word being "Yes" according to Barth's understanding of supralapsarianism (God's decree of Redemption precedes the decree of Fall). What probably comes closer to that view in the NT is the (Pauline? Marcionite?) doctrine of Galatians (3:13): "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming curse for us."
Whence Barth's criticism of Calvin's doctrine of double predestination: if God's negative "decrees" (of Fall and reprobation) are considered apart from Christ as God's one and only revelation they actually rest on nothing -- except a "purely human" deduction by binary logic Aristotle-style.
But if divine judgement is totally fulfilled in Christ, as redemption is, there is no room for anyone to be left outside. All find their judgement in Christ -- and their salvation as well.