Hi Chaim,1. You have no proof that the rebuilding of the city took 49 years (or 7 weeks). On the other hand, we have plenty of proof showing that Cyrus' proclamation came about 50 years (or 7 weeks) after Jerusalem's destruction.

I have proof according to the book of Nehemiah that the wall was rebuilt, the city, and the Jews returned in Nehemiah's lifetime.

The prophecy regarding Cyrus had to do with the rebuilding of the temple, not the city or wall. In Daniel 9:25, there is nothing mentioned about the rebuilding of the temple during that 49 years. So you have a prophecy regarding Cyrus that is detached from the 49 years to rebuild Jerusalem, the streets and the wall. In addition, it might be said that the temple that was eventually destroyed by the Romans in verse 9:26 was completed, depending upon definition, 18 BCE to 60 CE.

9:25 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.

2. There is no reason to suspect from the prophecy that the 1st 69 weeks are separated from the 70th and final week by some 2000 plus years. This makes the "70 weeks" meaningless. Better to believe the 70 weeks are contiguous, and not separated for no other reason than to fit someone into the text.


It is meaningless, unless Jesus is the anointed one in Daniel 9. And unless that the Christian Bible is in error regarding that the gospel being delivered unto the gentiles will end, when that last 70th week begins for all Israel to be saved in the Christian sense of the word, ending with the return of Jesus to bring in everlasting righteousness and the Kingdom of God.

In addition, what makes that final week being separated not so meaningless - is that it is divided in half, to correspond to the 3 1/2 year prophecies of the end times in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Bible (Revelation 11, 12, 13, and 19). It baffles me to no end that the Jews can't make that connect - it seems so obvious (pardon my rant :) ).

3. The end of the 70 weeks coincides with the destruction of the Temple and the cutting-off of an annointed one. With the last high-priest or Saduccee dying, that was the end of a corrupt Priesthood. Fits perfectly. The christian timeline with Jesus does not coincide with the destruction of the Temple and city. Therefore, that interpretation is a bust.

It is amazing to me that Judaism goes to extremes using Hebrew Scriptures regarding Cyrus as the anointed in 9:25;
yet makes such a weak case for the anointed in 9:26 - using no Hebrew Scriptures. Of course, then again the Sadducees are not prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures. Hmmm.... so how could the last Sadducee (shall we call him Mr. anonymous) be the anointed in 9:26, when compared to Cyrus a Biblical character, well known to all, as the anointed in the previous sentence (sheesh), Mr. anomymous is so inconsequental, historically speaking, in the very next sentence be the anointed of that sentence (sheesh again)?

No, Jesus does not coincide with the destruction of the Temple - because He isn't the one who did it. But before Jesus was crucified, he did prophesize that the destruction of the temple would happen as a result of the Jews rejecting him. Which the events did play out that way, historically speaking.

9:26 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.

4. Are you aware that there were two, separate 70 year prophecies that Jeremiah described? One was ending at around the time of Daniel's prayer (1st year of Darius), while the other ended some 18 years after this. Are you not aware of this? Yes or No? We can move on after you answer this.

Jeremiah 25:11-12 about serving the king of Babylon.

Jeremiah 29:10 -19 - which hasn't ended yet......(IMHO)