It seems to me that the restoration of Jerusalem was a process, including
the temple, the precious things that went in the temple, the return of the
exiles, the walls and the financing of all of this. The last edict was
issued when Nehemiah said in effect, 'What about the walls?'. From this
point of view, none of these elements make sense without the others, their a
set, all part of the restoration of Jerusalem.
It's just that the first three edicts hardly sound like they are about the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem. The third edict, in Ezra 7, has little to do with restoring even anything. Nehemiah 2:1-5, written after the temple was built, seems to clearly say that the city hadn't been rebuilt. Otherwise, there surely wouldn't be anything about the city lying waste in Nehemiah 2:1-5. I can't see any support in 'Abdu'l-Baha's words for the idea that He might have been allowing a broader definition to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. 'Abdu'l-Baha has the rebuilding of Jerusalem take place starting in 457 BC. At this date the temple had already been built, decades before in fact. Hence, I can't see why He was referring to anything but the rebuilding of the city. I don't think anyone would consider the city built after only the temple had been built, which was what the first two edicts ordered. Nehemiah obviously agreed that the city hadn't been rebuilt yet, as shown by Nehemiah 2:1-5.
> I'm a little puzzled as to why Daniel would have been referring to the
third
> edict especially, given that this edict isn't the best match to what
> 'Abdu'l-Baha mentions, not being about the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Or is
> this interpretation held just so that we can have a prophecy of Jesus
here?
Daniel 9:23-27 gives the prophesy of the terrible fulfilment of the 70 week period, which so clearly refers to the martyrdom of Christ. People such as William Miller must have been able to count back to correct date for the edict and then count the 2300 years to 1844. The numbers work, thats why tens of thousands of Christians were expecting the second advent 1843/1844.
Can someone just tell me why the 2300 years should start in 457 BC, from the date in Daniel 9? I took up a lot of space trying to show why this should be so in an article a while back, but now don't see my own points as having any merit, and in fact would see them as rationalizations. Have I 'lost it' since that time, or is there something else? The 2300 days is a time when the daily sacrifices are taken away. What significance did 457 BC have as far as daily sacrifices are concerned? The sacrifices were neither taken away, and during the time of Jesus, later in the period of 2300 years from 457 BC to 1844, sacrifices were still going on. In 1844 hadn't the daily sacrifices been taken away just short of 1800 years? One, of course, would have to spiritualize the meaning of daily sacrifices in this prophecy. 'Abdu'l-Baha does not say in SAQ just why the 2300 years should start in 457 BC. After addressing the prophecy of Christ starting from that date He simply says that 2300 years from that date comes to 1844, and then says that there are no clearer prophecies than this of a Manifestation anywhere. Since I don't see what information He has produced to show that the 2300 years starts in 457 BC, I'm having difficulty seeing how anyone other than one who already agreed with Him would necessarily be able to agree that the prophecy was clear. Since 'Abdu'l-Baha had just been speaking of the prophecy in chapter 9, which is LATER in Daniel, evidently He thinks that we need to read chapter 9 to figure out the calculation in chapter 8. That sounds a little strange to me, given the full information received about the prophecy in chapter 8. The idea that the 2300 years should start in 457 BC seems further problematic to me, given Daniel 9:27, "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." 'Abdu'l-Baha identifies the final week as being in the time of Jesus. In the midst of that week, in 30 AD, the sacrifice and oblation ceased. But isn't that exactly the same as the daily sacrifices spoken of in chapter 8? If so, wouldn't the daily sacrifices have been taken away in 30 AD, not 457 BC? The 2300 years would then still be waiting for fulfillment, and the Manifestation wouldn't have come yet. Also, Daniel 12:11 says, "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." When seen in light of Daniel 9:27 they would have to be talking of the same time, wouldn't they? They are talking of the same things, and wouldn't the 1290 years have to start in 30 AD, finding their fulfillment at a date that has absolutely no significance? The prophecy of seventy weeks has nothing indicating that the daily sacrifice is taken away at the time it starts. Of course it doesn't, as during the last of its weeks the daily sacrifice is to stop, which of course means it had been going on. Also, I don't see how Ezra 7 reasonably fits the definition of a command to rebuild Jerusalem, but I do see how Nehemiah 2 applies. That would then make this too late for a prophecy of Jesus. I don't see why there is reason to believe that Daniel wasn't referring to a singular command from the wording used, though 'Abdu'l-Baha says four edicts were referred to, though one especially.
So, I see quite a few problems. I haven't even got into the dating of Daniel, and how this might affect things.
Regards, David
_________________________________________________________________ Check out the Xtra gaming servers at http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming !
---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
