Daniel’s 70 Weeks Challenge

play hr.1
—right click to download—
play hr.2
Join us live Wed @ 9am PT, noon ET
ProphecyRealityTV
for interview email me@nicklasarthur.info

I challenge any one to show me anything in this illustration that is inconsistent with the complete text of the Seventy Weeks Prophecy. If you cannot exclude this view by the text then it must be seriously considered. Next, does history exclude it? To the contrary, history confirms it. The prophecy is completely fulfilled. That’s the evidence.

dan70weeks-challengeSeventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. (25) Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. (26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. (27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. Daniel 9:24-27

Related Posts:
What Year Is It?
Daniel 9:27 – New English Versions Confusion
Great Prophecy Delusion 1: 7yr Tribulation Deception
Show me the GAP
Abomination of Desolation

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Daniel’s 70 Weeks Challenge”

  1. I am sorry you are so busy. I have one question. Explain the 40 yr. line to 70 C.E.? One last comment from me. You said somewhere on this site that you are trying to not teach falsely.Remember, I have shown you by scripture that God blamed the Pharisee and the scribes for the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. If you cannot prove by scripture that the prince in verse 26 is Titus or Vespasian then would you be teaching falsely? I am not attacking you. Just trying to show my brother through God, that you might be wrong in your interpretation. Thanks for your valuable time. Nicholas

    Like

    1. I cannot be manipulated to accept an interpretation that I do not find in the scripture. “the people of the prince to come” does not require an antecedent in the text construct for the prince or the people in the phrase by any rule of grammar. That they are “to come” is enough information that an antecedent is unnecessary not to mention that “the people of the prince” stands alone without need to identify the “prince” in the text. If I expound the historical fact that Romans literally and physically did destroy the temple in 70 ad, and that is the truth, how am I a false prophet?

      Like

      1. First, I would like to thank you for your book. I am the church that Jesus’ built and follow the Bible. I know you need to use things in the history of man to help figure out the prophecies in the bible. But, the scripture is the truth and if a prophecy can be proved by scripture then the scripture takes precedence above any other proof. I assume you go by the King James Version of the bible. when the bible was translated in the original 1611 version, the prince in verse 26 was capitalized. This shows that the translators that King James had instructed to translate the bible into English, believed that the prince was Messiah the Prince.

        I asked you a question. Not to manipulate you into believing my point of view. Immediately after the question I said that I was not attacking you. Now just like Lucky reading a “Gap” into the prophecy, you are reading into the question that I am calling you a false prophet. There are false prophets all over the Christian faith. They cannot teach the truth because; the truth is not in them. There are teachers who try to teach the truth but are in error sometimes in their teachings. I think you are a teacher that is in error on this. I am sorry, if you think that I called you a false prophet.

        I am not denying that the historical fact that Romans literally and physically did destroy the temple in 70 A.D. and that is the truth. This fits your timeline but, not God’s timeline for the prophecy. By your timeline, you are reading 37 years into the prophecy. We disagree on two things in the prophecy, the starting year and the people and the prince in verses 26.

        I state my case on Matthew 23. To paraphrase, Jesus was admonishing the scribes and the Pharisees for their abominations and transgressions of God’s law. Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Matthew 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. This chapter shows you who God blamed for the destruction of the temple. God left the temple in 30 A.D. when he rent the veil from top to bottom. Matthew 27:51 The temple became desolate when Jesus died on the cross.

        Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city. Answer these questions: What is the timeframe God set for his people and the holy city? Who are the people and the holy city? What is determined on the people and the holy city and why does God blame them for this?

        When you look at the first sentence in verse 24, it is telling you who God blamed for the destruction of the temple and the city. You look in Matthew 23 and Jesus tells you what the transgressions and abominations are. God gives the length of the prophecy in verse 24 and the starting point in verse 25. If you go outside this time frame to prove anything in the prophecy then you are wrong in your interpretation.

        When it comes to this prophecy, it is who God blames for the destruction of the city and the temple, not who we can prove by man’s history that literally and physically destroyed the city and the temple. It is God who set the time frame. All I ask is that you do is to prove by the bible that Titus and the Roman Army are who God blamed for the destruction of the city and the temple. Is it not the Word of God that should be used to prove the prophecy?

        Like

        1. And after threescore and two weekes, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himselfe, and the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the citie, and the Sanctuarie, and the ende thereof shall be with a flood, and vnto the ende of the warre desolations are determined. (Dan 9:26) KJV-1611

          You will notice that the Messiah is also Capitalized. If the Messiah was a correct antecedent the grammar would require this construction, “but not for himselfe, and his people shall destroy the citie…”

          “people of the Prince that shall come” only adds confusion if it is to refer to the antecedent “Messiah” because it becomes debatable thereby.

          and please – I am done with this, it is not what this article is about. peace

          Like

  2. I would like to say that there is no room for a “gap” in this prophecy. The prince in verse 26 refers to Messiah the Prince spoken of in verse 25. All three of the word he in verse 27 refers to Messiah the Prince as well. There is no Abomination of Desolations being setup. It is for the overspreading of abominations spoken of in Matthew 23 that he is going to make it desolate.

    God’s not the author of confusion – please study Genesis 11:1-9 and 1 Corinthians Chapter 1.

    Like

  3. The date for the start of the prophecy is 457 B.C. not 458 B.C. The dates for the first 7 weeks are 457 B.C. to 409 B.C. The dates for the 62 weeks are 408 B.C. to 26 A.D. And for the last week the dates are 26 A.D. to 33 A.D.

    The first 7 weeks according to Encyclopaedia Britannica: Or, A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and …, Volume 11, found in Google Books, states, “At last, however, all obstacles were surmounted, and the temple finished as related in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The last of these chiefs died about 409 B.C. after having restored the Jewish worship to its original purity, and reformed a number of abuses which took place immediately on its commencement.” The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

    From 408 B.C. to 26 A.D. is the 62 weeks that the prophecy is talking about. In the fall of 26 A.D. Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist which started the last week of the prophecy. In the spring of 30 A.D. Jesus is crucified. In 33 A.D. Stephen is stoned and the church goes the the Gentiles.

    and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; This has been used to refer to the Devil, but you have it referring to the Romans. By what we know now, I can see how you think it is referring to the Romans. So, where does it talk about anyone other than the Messiah in verses 24 and 25 of Daniel 9?

    Of the prince that shall come can only be referring to somebody already spoken of in the prophecy before verse 26 and that can only be Messiah the Prince, which is introduced in verse 25. Now some say it is speaking of someone else because the word prince is not capitalized. Consider this: Prince Charles traveled to the U.S. last week. During his visit to the U.S. the prince said that he had gotten sick. Would the word prince be capitalized in the second sentence? No, but we would still know that it refers to Prince Charles since, he was the only prince spoken of in the previous sentence.So, the prince that shall come has to be Messiah the Prince in verse 25.

    Let’s look at whats left. The people shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Who are the people that will destroy the city and the sanctuary? The Romans are the ones who physically crucified Jesus in 30 A.D. and physically destroyed the city and the sanctuary 70 A.D. But, the people that the sentence is talking about is the same ones that crucified him.The ones that chose Barabbas over Jesus. The scribes, the Pharisees, and the unbelievers actually past the sentence of crucifixion on Jesus by choosing Barabbas over Jesus. These same people are the ones that destroyed the city. How? 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; Matthew 27:51 (KJV) This verse states that the veil of the temple, that separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple,was torn into from top to bottom. This was done by God Himself. God left this Temple and from the day of Pentecost has been entering his temple of people who have repented of there sin and accepted him as their Lord and Saviour. The Temple was destroyed because of the abominations of the scribes and the Pharisees. Matthew 23:1-39 So, it was the people, the scribes and the Pharisees of Messiah the Prince, that destroyed the temple. 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.Matthew 23:38 (KJV)

    Like

    1. So what you are saying is that the Jews who were ultimately responsible for the Judgment of God which led to the 70 AD Desolation are the “people of the prince that shall come” as an alternate to the Roman Legions who physically did the deed under their Roman prince who also was to come. I guess that is just as viable as an interpretation, but for the purpose of this article, that the 70 weeks are past with the presented time line, it does not change the outcome.

      Like

      1. I can’t ask you to do this without providing my proof.
        [ read Mat 21:33 through Mat 22:7 ]
        God’s vengeance for all of the righteous blood came upon this generation, and Jesus had the Roman army destroy them and burn up Jerusalem.

        To understand that the people that shall destroy the city and the sanctuary are of the prince(Jesus) to come. It tells us that most of the people of the Roman Army were his people from the surrounding provinces. Titus Favius Josephus was born in Jerusalem to a father of priestly descent and a mother who claimed royal ancestry. He was born into a family of priests and became a priest himself. He became a Pharisee at the age of 19. He was a Jewish born person who initially fought against the Roman Army. He defect to the Roman Army and marched on Jerusalem in 70 A.D. with Titus.

        The prince that shall come is Jesus not Titus or Vespasian.

        Like

        1. This is a fringe argument and not what this post is really about. My plate is full and until this becomes important to me as a matter of prophecy or faith I dont have time to look into it further. peace, Nicklas

          Like

  4. Do you have the dates for the for your chart of the prophecy that is on this site. Do you know why all the dates are important. I am working on my own explanation of the prophecy and it coincides with your chart to a point. I would like to exchange information with you on this subject.

    Like

  5. In reply to Keith.

    Your main argument is that Jesus could not have “confirmed the covenant…for one week” because his ministry was “cut off” in the middle of the week and that’s only 3 1/2 years. Let me ask you : Does Jesus minister today? Did Jesus rise from the dead? Was He alive for the following 3 1/2 years? The scripture supports… He confirmed the covenant by rising from the dead, remember the Pharisees believed in the resurrection as part of the covenant as opposed to the Sadducees who did not. Jesus did confirm the covenant for the entire 70th week, first by His works and words, signs and wonders; then by His resurrection and unless you deny “that wherever two or more are gathered in my name” He was there ministering the Gospel to Israel in and through His disciples for the remaining 3 and 1/2 years “determined for Israel.” For the first 3 1/2 years he would say “I have not come but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” and it wasn’t until 3 1/2 years after His sacrifice that the Gospel went to the Gentiles, concluding the exclusive position determined for Israel by the 70 weeks-490 years.

    Like

    1. Kieth reply to Nicklas Arthur.

      “The abomination of desolation has not been set up, the consummation has not come (consummation is the end of the age), and your math is incorrect. 458 + 30 = 488, not 483. You mischaracterized what I said in your comment above. You need to understand the 70th week of Dan.9:27 in the light of Mat.24:1-35, and the two 31/2 yr. time periods given in Rev. 11:2-3,Rev. 12:6,14, and Rev.13:5. See Dan. 7:25 also. The gospel didn’t go to the uncircumcision until about 7 yrs. after it went to the circumcision. If you listen to the July 14, 2013 recording you will learn that the Gentiles are the previously scattered (and divorced) ten tribed northern kingdom. Rom. 9:24-26 takes us to Hos.1:4-10, and Hos. 2:23. Then you will have a Biblical identification of the Gentiles instead of a Catholic and Protestant misidentification”
      ANSWER:
      1. Your statement,
      “abomination of desolation has not been set up, the consummation has not come” is your opinion of a future yet unseen. That is why we are having this debate because I can show a possible past fulfillment which cannot be excluded by the scripture itself. Your alternate definition of words and events does not alter this fact. An honest man would admit this though choose to hold to a future fulfillment of the same.
      2. I did not mean to mischaracterize, I only stated what I perceived your main argument to be in your audio dissertation.
      3. The 1290 days from the Daniel ch12 abomination of desolation is not the same as the 1260 days of Revelation… you need to understand that things that are different are not the same.
      4. we agree that the gospel went to the uncircumcised 7 years after the circumcised… no disagreement there.
      ps. My Math is fine… if you also researched the calendar as I have you would know that the ones who gave us our Roman Year CE. Dating have admitted that Jesus was actually born between 4-6 BCE, most researchers agree.

      If you see my presentation WHAT YEAR IS IT that will clear up many of your misconceptions about my position. peace my friend

      Like

  6. Nicklas

    Verse 26 refers to the Messiah being cut off and the PEOPLE OF THE PRINCE TO COME destroying the city and the sanctuary. It is reasonable to assume that the Messiah is NOT the Prince to Come. It is also reasonable to assume that verse 26 precedes verse 27. Do you accept that The PEOPLE OF THE PRINCE TO COME refers to Titus and the Romans who destroyed the temple in AD 70? If you accept this reasoning, then it follows that verse 27 events must follow AFTER the events of verse 26 (which took place in AD 70).
    [Just because I accept that the “people of the prince to come” is the Roman Guard under Titus doesn’t mean I have to accept your premise that all v.27 events follow chronologically in order, that is your opinion, not mine, the text does not demand it. N]

    If you accept this reasoning as well, [I do not accept this reasoning] then it is unreasonable to assume that after following a chronological sequence from verses 24-26, that verse 27 should suddenly flash back to AD 33 and make reference to the Messiah (who was cut off in AD 33) confirming a covenant back in AD 30-33, when clearly the time line is now in AD 70. God is NOT the author of confusion.

    The “HE” in verse 27 cannot refer to the Messiah, who has been cut off in AD 33. The “HE” in verse 27 must refer to either the “THE PRINCE TO COME” of verse 26 (which is undeniable Titus) or another ruler like Titus who is yet to come. [The proper antecedent for the “he” in the text is only the Messiah, it is not “the people of the prince to come” or any division thereof. True, God is not the author of confusion, perhaps your grade school grammar teacher could help out here.] If the “HE” of verse 27 related to the Messiah, then it is reasonable to assume that verse 27 would have come before verse 26, as the Messiah would have had to first confirm the covenant before being cut off (verse 26). [False, He confirmed the covenant by rising from the dead, remember the Pharisees believed in the resurrection as part of the covenant as opposed to the Sadducees who did not. Jesus did confirm the covenant for the entire 70th week, first by His works and words, signs and wonders; then by His resurrection and unless you deny “that wherever two or more are gathered in my name” He was there ministering the Gospel to Israel in and through His disciples for the remaining 3 and 1/2 years “determined” for Israel]

    Now follow this reasoning carefully as this explains the GAP. The “HE” in verse 27 cannot refer to Titus either as verse 26 also talks about an “end” and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. This took place in AD 70. Verse 27 “ HE will confirm a covenant with many” therefore refers to a period AFTER THE “END”. THIS IS “THE GAP” THAT I AM REFERING TO, THE PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THE END OF VERSE 26 AND beginning of VERSE 27. [This is total conjecture, not even Chuck Missler can show me where a ‘Daniel’s 70 Weeks’ gap is explicitly stated in this or any other text of scripture. All we would need is one for me to agree that a gap is possible, two or three and I’d be preaching it. But there is NOT EVEN ONE EXPLICIT reference anywhere in the entire Bible. Please look up the word EXPLICIT before you start throwing verses at this.]

    I Hope this makes sense. I cannot make it clearer than this. If you wish to contest this reasoning please start from where I have stopped and disprove my reasoning first. Do not start with another counter theory and take the focus off mine, without first disproving mine! Remember you are a genuine “Seeker after the Truth”. I believe, you are not interested in defending your position and your reputation at any cost.

    God Bless
    Lucky

    Like

    1. I have [inserted replies] in your comments above. I’m sorry to disappoint as I have no counter theories, I only rely on what is express in the text. It is those who wish to insert a gap which is not express in the text who need theory and conjecture to support it.

      peace

      Like

      1. Nicklas
        —-deleted….IT IS ACCEPTED BY MOST BIBLE SCHOLARS THAT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST STARTED HIS MINSTRY AT THE END OF THE 69TH WEEK (SOON AFTER HE WAS BAPTISED) AND CONTINUED IT FOR 3.5 YEARS INTO THE 70TH WEEK. YESHUA DID NOT CONFIRM THE COVENANT FOR THE FULL 1 WEEK OF THE 70TH WEEK. NO. HIS MINISTRY WAS FOR 3.5 YEARS ONLY. (AFTER 69TH WEEK THE MESSIAH WILL BE CUT OFF). “that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks”:THAT IS WHY REV 11 AND 12 STILL MAKE REFERNCE TO THE UNFULFILLED ½ A WEEK. YOU HAVE CAREFULL AVOIDED RESPONDING TO THIS!…deleted…
        Lucky

        Like

        1. Notwithstanding your renewed personal attacks …deleted… And your rehashed/re-posted arguments of complete conjecture, which I have already answered, also …deleted… I left the only worthy question which I did not “CAREFULL AVOIDED RESPONDING TO” as accused, but only neglected because of the overwhelming amount of aforementioned “rehashed/re-posted arguments of complete conjecture”. So I will answer it now as it will edify all concerned though the question is not clearly stated:

          Because there are actually two questions I am going to re-post the answer to the first one: Jesus did confirm the covenant by rising from the dead, remember the Pharisees believed in the resurrection as part of the covenant as opposed to the Sadducees who did not. Jesus did confirm the covenant for the entire 70th week, first by His works and words, signs and wonders; then by His resurrection (after He was cut off) and unless you deny “that wherever two or more are gathered in my name” He was there ministering the Gospel to Israel in and through His disciples for the remaining 3 and 1/2 years “determined” for Israel. (If your are honest, though you disagree, you would have to admit that the bible text does not exclude this interpretation.)

          Now for the last question: Things that are different are not the same! When Jesus spoke of the “abomination of desolation-Mat.24” he referenced Daniel 12:11 which states “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days [1,290].” You’ll notice that is different than the Revelation 11:3 & 12:6 references which both number “a thousand two hundred and threescore days” [1,260}. The Daniel/Matthew and Revelation prophecies reference two different time frames and events. See my post Abomination of Desolation for an explanation of the Matthew-24/Daniel-12 1290 days. The Revelation 1260 days are future from the other. Things that are different are not the same! 🙂

          Like

  7. If you could, please explain from Daniel 9:24 , Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city ……….to make an end of sins, Obviously we are still in sin, what does that mean? Thanks

    Like

    1. “to make an end of sins”:
      This does not mean that men will never sin again as some of the futurist camp would argue, for the scripture confirms that men will even sin in the millennium after the “Great Tribulation” of the futurist pseudo seventieth week, so this argument is against their own unscriptural view as well. Our new testament writers confirm the true meaning…

      …but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb 9:26

      then again

      For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust…
      (1Pe 3:18)

      So He did “make an end of sin”.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s