Daniel and the "7 year Tribulation"

I was recently perusing through some of my old folders when I came across some notes that I had written years earlier (probably 20 years ago; they were after all handwritten). There on the page I had 'calculated' the 483 years of Dan 9 so that it 'fits' with the life of Christ--actually the thought is that Dan 9 leads us exactly to the time of Christ's Triumphal entry, or the cross, depending on whom you ask. (As I have noted before, this was my upbringing. I was rasied to read the Scriptures in such a literalistic fashion--meaning that we are to take everything literally instead of letting the genre determine how we read the text). So, how might I respond to such a reading (that is, how do I respond to myself!): 1) Taking numbers in an apocalyptic text like Daniel literally are problematic; the first ‘time frame’ given in Dan is found in 7:25 which reads ‘a time, times, and half a time’—this is clearly an undefinable time frame (the plural use of 'times' cannot be defined); which is an apocalyptic way of saying that the time frame is symbolic and not to be taken literally. Numbers is apocalypses do not have as their primary referent a literally meaning (secondary or tertiary perhaps). To say that Daniel goes on to affirm that the time frame is 3 1/2 years (half of the 7 years) does not work either since Daniel gives us two numbers in ch 12 that don't work together (1290; 1335). 2) The 69 X 7 (or 483) years of Dan 9 must be manipulated to ‘fit’ with the Christ events (my notes have all the details as to how the numbers 'work out'; but my efforts are clearly an effort to make things work); hardly any scholar will date the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus in AD 32 (it was either in 30 or 33); also to make this date work one must assume it was the decree of 445 BC, when the context of Daniel favors the decree of Cyrus in 539 BC; even so, there were several other decrees; so one must arbitrarily take the decree of 445; furthermore, 445 BC to AD 32 does not equal 483 years (of course, such proposals come with many adjustments to make it fit, but such manipulations themselves should tell you that the proposal is highly suspect) The beauty of the Bible is found in its intricacies. The beauty of the text often transcends some literalistic surface reading. We must learn to be content with allowing the mystery and complexity of the Scriptures be what they are: namely, they point to realities of God's sovereignty; they are not riddles to be solved by our clever calculations Now let me be clear on what I am saying: Certainly, I absolutely affirm that Dan 9 leads us to Jesus. But I don't think that we have to decipher the 'exact time frame' that is supposedly hidden in the text. Instead, the text informs us of God's sovereign control of events and that He will bring them to fruition in accordance with His faithfulness (and not a time clock)!

Jesus the Messiah

This is a response to an email conversation in which I was invited to comment: (I omitted the names of individuals) Thanks for allowing me to peer into this conversation. I have been watching T and K’s replies. They have both been very articulate and it is a joy to watch people discuss and disagree with respect and dignity. Without attempting to get into the midst of the dialogue on the details, I would like to add, what I hope is clarity, with regards to the philosophical issues. Basically, the problem is that we often confuse what science can do and what science cannot do. K is correct when she says, “I'm not sure the idea of a Creator even belongs in a discussion about evolutionary theory as evolutionary theory does not suggest there IS a creator, or if there ISN'T one.” This is true because science cannot address “purpose” or “design”. This is in the realm of philosophy/theology, or metaphysics. Purpose cannot be tested in a laboratory. It is not subject to experimentation or falsification. Therefore, science cannot address the question of God’s existence or even God’s involvement in an event. Now, I do agree with K’s assertion that “And there are so many unexplained (by science) phenomena in this great big amazing universe ... there must something else to it other than science,” but we must understand that such a conclusion is beyond what science is allowed to do and is a metaphysical (theological) conclusion. Thus, K, is not correct when she makes the claim “there is no "intelligence" or "grand master plan" in evolutionary theory.” This is a metaphysical claim that science cannot weigh in on. That is, science cannot affirm nor deny that statement. It is beyond science. In the same way I would note that T’s claim that most evolutionists are Atheists is ultimately irrelevant when it comes to establishing the veracity of the scientific claims. (Furthermore, I don’t think it is true. Certainly, Atheists uses evolution to support their position; but it is not true that “atheism is the natural conclusion of belief in the evolutionary theory of the origins of life”, because that is a metaphysical claim that is beyond the ability of science). The key point, which most people on both sides of this debate fail to recognize, is that the debate about God’s existence cannot be part of the scientific arena. Scientists cannot assert whether or not God exists. This debate is for the philosophers and theologians. Now I fully agree with T that the deductions of intelligent design are strong evidences for the presence of a creator. I would add that the problem of the ‘Origin of life’ appears insurmountable at this time for one who postulates that God does not exist based on the evidences of evolutionary science. In fact, to say that God does not exist based on evolutionary science is downright silly. One more tangential point: faith is never blind and irrational—at least it is not supposed to be for Christians. The Bible tells us to ‘test and approve’ God’s will. To Love God with ‘our minds’. Jesus claimed to be ‘the Truth’. PS for those of you who are interested, I will be teaching a study on Genesis 1-12 beginning Tues Sept 6 at Cornerstone Fellowship Thanks