[b-hebrew] repost of full question
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Fri Apr 18 20:08:53 EDT 2008
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Dirk Frulla <fiveacorns at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks for responding!
> Let's come at it another way. This is another dimension to it that is
> confusing to me. When Daniel wrote chapter 9, the Jews were still in
> Jerusalem. They had not been released yet - that's the whole reason for his
> prayer in chapter 9. Daniel has just witnessed the end of the Babylonian
> empire in chapter 5. If you go back to Jeremiah chapter 25, read verse 12,
> and then go back to Jeremiah 29 and read the verses after verse 10, there
> was an order that was to be followed - a clear sequence of events.
> FIRST the 70 years would end
> THEN Babylon would be called to account
> THEN the Jews would return to God - with repentence, fasting, etc.
> THEN the Jews would return to their land
> At the time Daniel wrote the prayer recored in chapter 9, the Jews were on
> step #3 - remember Babylon was called to account in ch. 5. It is interesting
> that Daniel set out to do exactly what came next on the list of event -
> repent and pray to God. The Jews were on step #3, NOT step 4. That would
> come a few years later when they got back to their land. Until then, it
> would remain desolated. But look, step #1 was the 70 years ending. So the 70
> years ended at least 2-3 years before the desolations did. How can they be
> the same period?
> See what I mean?
> No, I don't see what you mean. These steps are not necessarily
> When the word is included, it brings the readers attention to the end of
> the desolations corresponding to the end of the 70 years. Now THAT matches
> the order set forth in Jeremiah.
> Just a side note. The seventy years could be a round. However, it is not
> necessary. If you take Jeremiah at face value - as 70 years of servitude for
> "these nations" to the "king of Babylon", then you can start with the full
> conquering of the Assyrian empire in 609 BC.... 609-539 = 70 years
> You shouldn't put too much weight on those dates. Historians pretend
certitude that they don't really have. Part of the problem is that ancient
records were not as accurate as we would want them to be: for example, Cyrus
the Great, in order to establish his legitimacy as the ruler of the
Medo-Persian empire left out any mention of Darius the Mede, for whom he was
a general. Ancient history is full of such examples. Furthermore, a king may
have a given name, a royal name, and maybe another name or two to use for
special occasions, which makes lining up all the details even harder.
Then there are other questions, as a result, the history of that period is a
real mess. But the historians give no indications that the records may be
questionable, at best. The most trustworthy surviving record is that of the
Bible, which indicates 70 years of exile and destroyed temple. I agree with
HH that that's what the text indicates.
Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew