Question about Daniel 9

[Cyberseeker]

I put it to you and anyone following this thread. It is clear from the Christian Bible that there are 2 anointed ones and 2 separate time periods. The first is an anointed prince or ruler who comes after 7 weeks. The second anointed comes much later, after the sixty-two weeks. They cannot be the same entity.

I do not accept that there is a time gap between the 7 and the 62 anymore than there is a gap between the 69 and the 70. The ‘weeks’ are intrinsically part of the Sabbath-year system (shmita) and the years run consecutively.

Furthermore, as I have explained further the Hebrew term y'kareit refers to the spiritual cutting off of the individual from Israel because of the commission of sins. Anyone that is kareit in the Hebrew Bible has committed a serious transgression.

Your Hebrew may be better than mine Eddy but you need to brush up on your Christian doctrine. Yes, we are applying y'kareit to our sinless Saviour. We call it the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. There are many New Testament references but I’ll just quote Paul.

“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

I hope that helps.

 

[edwin]

I do not accept that there is a time gap between the 7 and the 62 anymore than there is a gap between the 69 and the 70. The ‘weeks’ are intrinsically part of the Sabbath-year system (shmita) and the years run consecutively.


Your Hebrew may be better than mine Eddy but you need to brush up on your Christian doctrine. Yes, we are applying y'kareit to our sinless Saviour. We call it the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. There are many New Testament references but I’ll just quote Paul.

“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.†(2 Corinthians 5:21)

I hope that helps.

I agree there is no gap, but there certainly are 2 separate time periods and 2 separate anointed ones.

I am well aware of the Christian concept of substitutionary atonement, just as I assume you are aware, that this concept is contrary to what God says in the Hebrew Bible- what you would refer to as the Old Testament.

Anyway trying to stay on topic, could you tell me who you think the first anointed one is, and please explain your timeline wrt to the 69 weeks and how this gets one to Jesus. Thanks.

 

[Cyberseeker]

... could you tell me who you think the first anointed one is ...

Jesus the Anointed One. Notwithstanding the textual pause between the 7 and the 62 weeks, I believe that they speak of the same anointed person.

... and please explain your timeline wrt to the 69 weeks and how this gets one to Jesus. Thanks.

My diagram here: As far as the specific shmita years and how they tie in with Daniels 'weeks', I follow the chronology of Zuckermann.

 

[Elijah674]

I have no "angle". I am just presenting a more honest translation of the passages from the original Hebrew. I am fluent in the language, but if I have any questions I have colleagues who teach the language at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Go through the Hebrew Bible and find for me ONE example where the term "kareit" or its derivatives is NOT used to describe a sinner or transgressor who is spiritually cut off from Israel- and I am not referring to the use of same word when it is used to describe the making of a covenant- in which case the context it totally different. I could give you dozens of examples- I have already given one but here is another:

Lev7:20 but the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of Hashem's peace offerings while an uncleanness is on him, that person shall be cut off from his people.

The term is always used for those who have committed serious sins against God. The term implies spiritual rather than physical death but even if there is an implication of actual physical death it is not relevant to the discussion. The second entity that is y'kareit (future tense use of the term) is simply another "anointed". The Hebrew does not say "hamashiach" ie THE MESSIAH- just an anointed one who by definition of the term is evil and deserves to be cut off from the people of Israel for his transgression. If you wish to apply this to Jesus- that is your choice. In the meantime- still waiting for someone to answer my previous questions.

OK: I will try this just once.;)
One week or seven times I see as a day yr. time period of about 27-34 AD. The annointing of the Father of Christ at his baptism & then the Midnight Cry was soon to be over for old Israel. Matt. 25. (not 70AD) And Christ died in the 'midst' of the 7 years.

Christ was executed by His own, filling up their cup as a nation with the sin against the Holy Ghost. They CRIED THAT WE HAVE NO KING BUT CAESAR. Which was true then. See Matt,. 23:38 with their 'HOUSE' being DESOLATE! (and who immediately took over??)

They became killers of Christians, with Christ being the first! At the end here, they had the end of their probation & the seven years ending at the calling of Paul in 34AD with the Gospel going to the Gentiles world.

If this is understandable to you read over Matt. 10:5-6 on to see who the Midnight Cry was given by! Verse 15 ibid has the end for old Israel as a nation told.

Matt. 25:10 has their DOOR SHUT, meaning to me that probation was over for them as a nation. And the O.T. Sanctuary required blueprint proceeding of most of the laws of Moses came to an end. As the division from the Holy Place into the Most Holy Place was rent from top to the bottom at Christ death. Which has Christ as our High Priest about to really FINISH up His Priestly Work there. See Acts 3:19

--Elijah

 

[edwin]

Jesus the Anointed One. Notwithstanding the textual pause between the 7 and the 62 weeks, I believe that they speak of the same anointed person.




My diagram here:

As far as the specific shmita years and how they tie in with Daniels 'weeks', I follow the chronology of Zuckermann.

I have a few questions regarding your analysis:

1) Your interpretation of the timing is related to decree-as with all Christian interpretations. However, as has been pointed out, the Hebrew word in Dan 9:25 is
"devar" which means "word"-it does not mean decree or commandment. Notwithstanding the reliance on this mistranslation you choose Artaxerxes 457 BC as your starting point. This decree is described in Ezra, chapter 7. The decree refers to various treasures, gold and silver and various animal sacrifices that are to provided to Ezra for sacrifices at the Sanctuary. There is nothing here about rebuilding the temple or Jerusalem.

Scripture (according to you) states an anointed appears 483 years from the time of this decree. That puts one at 26 AD (as per your diagram). the start of Jesus' ministry. However the text goes on to say that "after the sixty-two weeks'' there is the "cutting off" which Christianity equates with the crucifixtion. Now it is clear that the time being referred to after the 69 weeks ends and the 62 weeks ends are the same-but because you choose to ignore what the text and punctuation is actually saying and ignore the anointed who comes after only 7 weeks-you have created serious difficulties. Which is it that comes after 7+62? Is the the appearance/ ministry or the death of Jesus?

The text clearly states that an anointed prince or ruler comes after 7 weeks. Then there is a period of 434 years( "after THE sixty-two weeks") where another anointed one is "cut off". They CANNOT be the same entity as you have stated.

Also, sacrifices did not cease with Jesus' death. They continued for several decades. I know Christianity feels that atonement was achieved with Jesus death but this is just a statement of faith. In the real word, can you honestly say that Jesus death resulted in the end of sin and everlasting righteousness?

Daniel was contemplating Jeremiah's prophecies concerning Jerusalem. The word or devar referred to previously is not any man-made word. It is the word of God through his prophet Jeremiah. This word went out at the time of the destruction of the first temple 586 BCE. In 537 BCE, seven septets after this date, Cyrus issued his edict conerning the return of the exiles and rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple. Cyrus is the anointed prince. The Hebrew bible confirms it:

Isaiah 44:28-Who says of Cyrus, "He is My shepherd, and all My desire he shall fulfill," and to say of Jerusalem, "It shall be built, and the Temple shall be founded."

Isaiah 45:1- So said the Lord to His anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I held, to flatten nations before him, and the loins of kings I will loosen, to open portals before him, and gates shall not be closed.

Ezra 1:1-3-
1. And in the first year of Cyrus, the king of Persia, at the completion of the word of the Lord from the mouth of Jeremiah, the Lord aroused the Spirit of Cyrus, the king of Persia, and he issued a proclamation throughout his kingdom, and also in writing, saying: א. 2. "So said Cyrus, the king of Persia, 'All the kingdoms of the earth the Lord God of the heavens delivered to me, and He commanded me to build Him a House in Jerusalem, which is in Judea. ב. 3. Who is among you of all His people, may his God be with him, and he may ascend to Jerusalem, which is in Judea, and let him build the House of the Lord, God of Israel; He is the God Who is in Jerusalem.


‘


ד

 

[Sinthesis]

I have no "angle". I am just presenting a more honest translation of the passages from the original Hebrew. I am fluent in the language, but if I have any questions I have colleagues who teach the language at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Go through the Hebrew Bible and find for me ONE example where the term "kareit" or its derivatives is NOT used to describe a sinner or transgressor who is spiritually cut off from Israel- and I am not referring to the use of same word when it is used to describe the making of a covenant- in which case the context it totally different. I could give you dozens of examples- I have already given one but here is another:

Lev7:20 but the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of Hashem's peace offerings while an uncleanness is on him, that person shall be cut off from his people.

The term is always used for those who have committed serious sins against God. The term implies spiritual rather than physical death but even if there is an implication of actual physical death it is not relevant to the discussion. The second entity that is y'kareit (future tense use of the term) is simply another "anointed". The Hebrew does not say "hamashiach" ie THE MESSIAH- just an anointed one who by definition of the term is evil and deserves to be cut off from the people of Israel for his transgression. If you wish to apply this to Jesus- that is your choice. In the meantime- still waiting for someone to answer my previous questions.

It's not quite that clear cut:

1Ki 18:4 - For it was [so], when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the LORD, that Obadiah took an hundred prophets, and hid them by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water.)


Jer 7:28 ¶ But thou shalt say unto them, This [is] a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the LORD their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth.


Jer 9:21 - For death is come up into our windows, [and] is entered into our palaces, to cut off the children from without, [and] the young men from the streets.


Jer 11:18 ¶ And the LORD hath given me knowledge [of it], and I know [it]: then thou shewedst me their doings.
Jer 11:19 - But I [was] like a lamb [or] an ox [that] is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, [saying], Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered.
Jer 11:20 - But, O LORD of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause.


Eze 21:1 ¶ And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Eze 21:2 - Son of man, set thy face toward Jerusalem, and drop [thy word] toward the holy places, and prophesy against the land of Israel,
Eze 21:3 - And say to the land of Israel, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I [am] against thee, and will draw forth my sword out of his sheath, and will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked.
Eze 21:4 - Seeing then that I will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked, therefore shall my sword go forth out of his sheath against all flesh from the south to the north:
Eze 21:5 - That all flesh may know that I the LORD have drawn forth my sword out of his sheath: it shall not return any more.​

 

[Cyberseeker]

...the Hebrew word in Dan 9:25 is "devar" which means "word"- it does not mean decree or commandment ...

... Daniel was contemplating Jeremiah's prophecies concerning Jerusalem. The word or devar referred to previously is not any man-made word. It is the word of God through his prophet Jeremiah. This word went out at the time of the destruction of the first temple 586 BCE ...

Point of clarification please. Are you saying that the Emperors decree was different and of less significance than Jeremiah's 'word'? Was the Emperors decree 'man-made' as opposed to Jeremiah's word which carried divine authority?

Ill get to your other points after this matter you seem to placing special importance on.

Cyber

 

[Stormcrow]

26 And after sixty two weeks, Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of a coming ruler shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, and war shall be until the end.

But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus *said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; what do you think?" They answered, "He deserves death!" Matthew 26:63-66 (NASB)

From the perspective of the priests of the Sanhedrin, Christ was "cut off" for the sin of blasphemy. Furthermore, He was cut off but not for Himself, rather for the sins of the whole world.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Corinthians 5:21 (NASB)

 

[Stormcrow]

I am well aware of the Christian concept of substitutionary atonement, just as I assume you are aware, that this concept is contrary to what God says in the Hebrew Bible...

So the blood of sacrificed bulls and goats under the Law was not "substitutionary atonement???"

 

[edwin]

So the blood of sacrificed bulls and goats under the Law was not "substitutionary atonement???"

I should have been more specific. I was referring to human substitutionary/vicarious atonement.

 

[edwin]

26 And after sixty two weeks, Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of a coming ruler shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, and war shall be until the end.

The Hebrew text says "y'kareit mashiach v'ayn lo"- an anointed one will be cut off and be no more OR literally "there is nothing to him". To translate v'ayn lo as "but not for Himself" is incorrect and misleading since it contains the concept of vicarious atonement when such a meaning is not in the original Hebrew. BTW even if Jesus said that he was the Messiah- this would not be considered blasphemy under the Mosaic Law.

 

[Stormcrow]

BTW even if Jesus said that he was the Messiah- this would not be considered blasphemy under the Mosaic Law.

There were a lot of things about the Law of Moses that the apostate priesthood of the 1st century just didn't seem to get right.

To translate v'ayn lo as "but not for Himself" is incorrect and misleading since it contains the concept of vicarious atonement when such a meaning is not in the original Hebrew.

While I am a stickler for a proper rendering of the original languages into English, I find it interesting that your apparent issue with every translation presented seems to come back to this idea that "vicarious atonement" isn't in the original Hebrew.

That view simply is not true. One of the most famous Messianic prophecies is in Isaiah 53:

Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted.

But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.

All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?

His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. Isaiah 53:4-9 (NASB)

This passage is all about "substitutionary atonement": the suffering of Christ fulfills this prophecy to a "T".

Furthermore, there is no other "Messiah the prince" in Daniel 9 that meets the conditions of fulfillment that Jesus Christ does. If you have a name you'd like to drop here that does, I'm sure we'll consider it.

 

[edwin]

There were a lot of things about the Law of Moses that the apostate priesthood of the 1st century just didn't seem to get right.

While I am a stickler for a proper rendering of the original languages into English, I find it interesting that your apparent issue with every translation presented seems to come back to this idea that "vicarious atonement" isn't in the original Hebrew.

That view simply is not true. One of the most famous Messianic prophecies is in Isaiah 53:

Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted.

But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.

All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?

His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. Isaiah 53:4-9 (NASB)

This passage is all about "substitutionary atonement": the suffering of Christ fulfills this prophecy to a "T".

Furthermore, there is no other "Messiah the prince" in Daniel 9 that meets the conditions of fulfillment that Jesus Christ does. If you have a name you'd like to drop here that does, I'm sure we'll consider it.

You have misunderstood. My objections are based on multiple factors-poor translations among other things. All of my objections would still stand in the total absence of consideration of "substitutionary atonement" involving humans. The Hebrew bible condemns this in many places. see Ezek 18 as just one example.

I will not get into a lengthy discussion of Isaiah 53 with you. That would require another thread. Suffice it say that the prophet identifies the servant several times in his book as being Israel. A more accurate translation of one the passages you quoted when considering the context of 53 is " but he was pained BECAUSE of our transgression..." ie the servant suffered because of the sins of the gentile kings and nations.

I have already identified the anointed prince- it is Cyrus. Scripture confirms this.
Christianity claims there is one anointed in this passage and combine the seven and sixty-two periods although there is no basis for this. The Jewish interpretation is that there are 2 anointed ones and 3 times periods- 7 weeks, 62 weeks and then 1 week. There are many Christian bibles which agree with the Jewish interpretation- ie an anointed prince comes after 7 weeks and then after sixty-two more weeks another anointed one is cut off. I fail to understand how you can continue to claim that both are Jesus short of simply ignoring the original Hebrew passage and punctuation.

 

[Cyberseeker]

...the Hebrew word in Dan 9:25 is "devar" which means "word"- it does not mean decree or commandment ...

... Daniel was contemplating Jeremiah's prophecies concerning Jerusalem. The word or devar referred to previously is not any man-made word. It is the word of God through his prophet Jeremiah. This word went out at the time of the destruction of the first temple 586 BCE ...

You seem to be exaggerating the differences between ‘word’, ‘command’, ‘edict’, and ‘decree’ in order to build a case for starting the count at Jeremiah’s prophecy instead of from an emperors decree.

However, the Emperors decree was not as 'man-made' as you are suggesting. Ezra 6:14 shows these kings issuing their decree as God’s agent. They may not have realised it, but their pronouncements carried the same God-inspired authority as Jeremiah did.

"So the elders of the Jews continued to build and prosper under the preaching of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia."​

I am not satisfied with your arguments for other reasons too. Your count of 49 years from Jeremiahs prophecy to Cyrus assumes that Jeremiah spoke it in 586BC. However, it came in the form of a letter sometime during Zedekiah’s reign. (Jer 29:2,3) It could have been delivered anytime between 50 to 60 years before Cyrus - not a neat ‘7 weeks’ as suggested.

Having said that, Im glad you quote Cyrus. But he was the one who spoke the ‘word’ dont you think? – not the one of whom it was spoken.

 

[edwin]

You seem to be exaggerating the differences between ‘word’, ‘command’, ‘edict’, and ‘decree’ in order to build a case for starting the count at Jeremiah’s prophecy instead of from an emperors decree.

However, the Emperors decree was not as 'man-made' as you are suggesting. Ezra 6:14 shows these kings issuing their decree as God’s agent. They may not have realised it, but their pronouncements carried the same God-inspired authority as Jeremiah did.

"So the elders of the Jews continued to build and prosper under the preaching of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia."
​

I am not satisfied with your arguments for other reasons too. Your count of 49 years from Jeremiahs prophecy to Cyrus assumes that Jeremiah spoke it in 586BC. However, it came in the form of a letter sometime during Zedekiah’s reign. (Jer 29:2,3) It could have been delivered anytime between 50 to 60 years before Cyrus - not a neat ‘7 weeks’ as suggested.

Having said that, Im glad you quote Cyrus. But he was the one who spoke the ‘word’ dont you think? – not the one of whom it was spoken.

Thanks for your response, Cyber. I provided one rabbinical interpretation. Another is that the word is that of God to Jeremiah provided in chapter 32 which seems to correspond to the last year of Zedekiah's reign and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. But tradition relates the Jer 29 to the time of destruction or shortly before it.

In the Biblical calendar it works out like this- destruction of temple 3338; Persian conquest under Cyrus 3387: completion of second temple 3408; destruction of second temple 3828 which corresponds to 69-70 CE.

There is no linguistic reason to assign a decree to the start point since the term devar refers to a word or message. A royal decree or command might be a "chok" or "mitzvah" but these terms are not used. If God through his angel wanted to make Daniel "understand" and enlighten him, it's unrealistic to think he would be ambiguous in the words used. Also what kind of understanding can Daniel have if the angel refers to some royal decree which is to occur at some point in the future-Daniel still has no starting point- he would not have understanding.

What was Daniel contemplating?
In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, contemplated the calculations, the number of the years that the WORD of the Lord had come to Jeremiah the prophet, since the destruction of Jerusalem seventy years.

There are only 2 prophecies that talk about the 70 years of exile and desolation. According to the Hebrew Bible Cyrus comes on the scene and issues the decree to rebuild the city and temple. Depending on your historical perspective this is 49-51 years after the destruction of the temple ~ seven septets and the second temple is completed 70 years after the destruction of the first. (biblical/Jewish 3338-3408/secular 586-516)

The bible confirms Cyrus as the anointed prince who accomplishes this to fulfil the word of the Lord through Jeremiah.

And in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, at the completion of the WORD of the Lord in the mouth of Jeremiah, the Lord aroused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia, and he issued a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying:

So said Cyrus the king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth has the Lord God of the heavens delivered to me, and He commanded me to build Him a House in Jerusalem, which is in Judea. Who among you is of all His people, may the Lord his God be with him, and he may ascend."

From a linguistic and contextual perspective and with consistency in scripture- this is why I favour the word of God as the start and not any manmade decree.

 

[Sinthesis]

Thanks for your response, Cyber. I provided one rabbinical interpretation. Another is that the word is that of God to Jeremiah provided in chapter 32 which seems to correspond to the last year of Zedekiah's reign and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. But tradition relates the Jer 29 to the time of destruction or shortly before it.

In the Biblical calendar it works out like this- destruction of temple 3338; Persian conquest under Cyrus 3387: completion of second temple 3408; destruction of second temple 3828 which corresponds to 69-70 CE.

There is no linguistic reason to assign a decree to the start point since the term devar refers to a word or message. A royal decree or command might be a "chok" or "mitzvah" but these terms are not used. If God through his angel wanted to make Daniel "understand" and enlighten him, it's unrealistic to think he would be ambiguous in the words used. Also what kind of understanding can Daniel have if the angel refers to some royal decree which is to occur at some point in the future-Daniel still has no starting point- he would not have understanding.

What was Daniel contemplating?
In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, contemplated the calculations, the number of the years that the WORD of the Lord had come to Jeremiah the prophet, since the destruction of Jerusalem seventy years.

There are only 2 prophecies that talk about the 70 years of exile and desolation. According to the Hebrew Bible Cyrus comes on the scene and issues the decree to rebuild the city and temple. Depending on your historical perspective this is 49-51 years after the destruction of the temple ~ seven septets and the second temple is completed 70 years after the destruction of the first. (biblical/Jewish 3338-3408/secular 586-516)

The bible confirms Cyrus as the anointed prince who accomplishes this to fulfil the word of the Lord through Jeremiah.

And in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, at the completion of the WORD of the Lord in the mouth of Jeremiah, the Lord aroused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia, and he issued a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying:

So said Cyrus the king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth has the Lord God of the heavens delivered to me, and He commanded me to build Him a House in Jerusalem, which is in Judea. Who among you is of all His people, may the Lord his God be with him, and he may ascend."

From a linguistic and contextual perspective and with consistency in scripture- this is why I favour the word of God as the start and not any manmade decree.

There are real problems with your favored interpretation. For starters:
Who do you believe Darius the Mede is?
How did he come to be a king?
When did he rule Babylon?

Dan 9:1 ¶ In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;​

 

[Cyberseeker]

... the word is that of God to Jeremiah provided in chapter 32 which seems to correspond to the last year of Zedekiah's reign and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. But tradition relates the Jer 29 to the time of destruction or shortly before it.

Jeremiah began expressing his prophecy from the 4th year of Jehoiakim (Jer 25) and expanded the detail of it in his letter. (Jer 29) He then kept repeating himself throughout the reign of Zedekiah. By the end of Zedekiahs reign they got fed up with him and had him locked up. (Jer 32)

But your explanation requires a precise 49-year span from God's 'word' until Cyrus. Well, it doesnt work. Gods revelation concerning the 70-year exile began earlier.

Furthermore, Daniels weeks (as opposed to Jeremiahs 70 yrs) are intrinsically part of the shmita. The destruction of the temple did not occur on a Sabbath year. So, your 49 years from then until Cyrus is is not part of the 7/49/490 sequences explained by Moses and again in Daniel.

Im not saying that Cyrus isn't significant. But I am saying that Daniels 'weeks' do not compute from 586 to 537BC.

 

[Stormcrow]

According to the Hebrew Bible Cyrus comes on the scene and issues the decree to rebuild the city and temple.

Not so fast...Look at Daniel 9:25 again:

"So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Daniel 9:25 (NASB)

There is no mention of a decree to rebuild the Temple in this verse. Cyrus gave a decree to rebuild the Temple, but it wasn't until Artaxerxes (444 BC) that a decree was issued to rebuild the city and its walls.

Cyrus issued the decree to rebuild the Temple circa 538 BC:

Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he sent a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying: "Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, 'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and He has appointed me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. ~'Whoever there is among you of all His people, may his God be with him! Let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah and rebuild the house of the LORD, the God of Israel; He is the God who is in Jerusalem. Ezra 1:1-3 (NASB)

Darius later finds this same decree and affirms (circa 521 BC) the building of the Temple only according to the decree of Cyrus:

Then King Darius issued a decree, and search was made in the archives, where the treasures were stored in Babylon.

"Leave this work on the house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews rebuild this house of God on its site. "Moreover, I issue a decree concerning what you are to do for these elders of Judah in the rebuilding of this house of God: the full cost is to be paid to these people from the royal treasury out of the taxes of the provinces beyond the River, and that without delay. Ezra 6:1,7-8 (NASB)

Artaxerxes reaffirmed the decrees of Cyrus and Darius to Ezra in 457 BC:

Blessed be the LORD, the God of our fathers, who has put such a thing as this in the king's heart, to adorn the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem, Ezra 7:27 (NASB)

But the Temple standing by itself wasn't secure. It wasn't until Nehemiah persuaded Artaxerxes to let him return to Judah to rebuild the city and its walls that the decree was issued to do just that!

And it came about in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes (444 BC), that wine was before him, and I took up the wine and gave it to the king. Now I had not been sad in his presence. Nehemiah 2:1 (NASB)

I said to the king, "If it please the king, and if your servant has found favor before you, send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers' tombs, that I may rebuild it."

Then the king said to me, the queen sitting beside him, "How long will your journey be, and when will you return?" So it pleased the king to send me, and I gave him a definite time. And I said to the king, "If it please the king, let letters be given me for the governors of the provinces beyond the River, that they may allow me to pass through until I come to Judah, and a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the fortress which is by the temple, for the wall of the city and for the house to which I will go." And the king granted them to me because the good hand of my God was on me. Nehemiah 2:5-8 (NASB)

The decree to rebuild Jerusalem did not come until the 20th year of the reign of Artaxerxes, even though three previous decrees had been issued to rebuild only the Temple!

But what does Daniel 9:25 say again???

"So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Daniel 9:25 (NASB)

The decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem came almost 100 years after Cyrus had died, and it was given to Nehemiah, not Ezra!

Cyrus cannot be "Messiah the Prince" of Daniel 9:25, as he was already dead when this decree was issued.

 

[Sinthesis]

Starting at 444BC is a dead end. Play it out; you'll be disappointed.

Look at how the word 'Jerusalem' is used elsewhere in Dan 9. What does 'Jerusalem' really mean?

 

[edwin]

No point going around in circles. My reading of the Hebrew noting how often the term devar appears in this chapter indicates that God is referring to his word or message. The term appears in v2, v23, and v25. This is a momentous occassion as Gavriel is not only going to give Daniel understanding of Jeremiah's prophecies concerning Jerusalem and when the second temple will be restored, he will tell him about its future destruction if certain things are not accomplished.

There are other Hebrew words for decree and they are not in the text. If God wished to give Daniel understanding he would not use the word devar in such an ambiguous way. It is used here as it is used consistently in the Tanach.

Christianity can't agree which decree is referred to-even in this thread. However, it is immaterial since the text properly translated does not say the Messiah the Prince will come after 69 weeks- it says an anointed prince appears after 7 weeks and the definite article before sixty-two weeks confirms the second time period.
So who is the anointed prince that comes 49-50 years after either 457 BCE or 445 BCE?

Here is my timeline according to the Biblical/ Jewish calendar.

1) Nebuchadnezzar subjugates Judea 3320
2) First temple destroyed 3338 (Jer 32 word)
3) Darius the Mede 3389-90; completion of Jer 25. 70 years babylon destroyed
4) Cyrus 3390- God's anointed ruler comes seven septets and 3 years after Jer 32 to issue proclamation. Proclamation as noted in Josephus confirms it for rebuilding the city and the temple.
5) completion second temple 3408- Jewish exile complete in return Jer 29 word
6) destruction of second temple 3828 completion of seventy septets.

In the last seven years befoe the destruction of the second temple historians say that Titus made a covenant with the people ca 62 CE which was abolished by Vespasian after 3 and 1/2 years when temple sacrifice was abolished. The second anointed being kariet could either be Agrippa or the corrupt priesthood.-the term mashiach or anointed being applied in the Hebrew bible for both kings and kohanim (priests). Over and out. :p