Interesting quote: “On the other hand, R. Singer states about Dâniyeil 9.25 “if Dâniyeil 9.25, as it appeared in the original 1611 edition of the NT, were to be left undoctored, it would be impossible to apply this verse to Jesus” (Outreach Judaism, p. 38-41).
On the other hand, to mangle Scriptures to fit his argument R. Singer argues, incomprehensively contrary to Judaism, that Dâniyeil and Yi•rәmәyâh′u ha-Nâ•vi′ were both “mistaken” in their prophecies (ibid. p. 40-41).
We concur that it’s impossible to apply this verse to the Christian Jesus on countless grounds. However, anyone who reads The 1993 Covenant (Chap. 10) will discover why, contrary to R. Singer’s argument,
- neither Dâniyeil nor Yi•rәmәyâh′u ha-Nâ•vi′ were “mistaken,” and
- that, contrary to his contention, and like many Sages of Judaism, we have always distinguished the first seven weeks of years (49 years) from the remaining 62 weeks of years (434 years)’ and it always has, and continues to, fit perfectly when applied to historical Rib′i Yәho•shu′a.
Moreover, what R. Singer describes as “Dâniyeil‘s mistake” turns out to be—surprise!—R. Singer’s mistake.
The מצא דבר להשיב ולבנות ירושלם in Dâniyeil 9.25 is straightforward and historical: the “saying to restore and build Yәrushâlayim” decreed by Artakhshast (Artaxerxes) I toNәkhëm•yâh′ in B.C.E. 453. This is easily verifiable in almost any encyclopedia or history reference book covering that period.
R. Singer attempts to tie this prophecy to a completely irrelevant passage “the Saying of י--ה‘ to Yi•rәmәyâh′u ha-Nâ•vi′, that He would fill up the חרבות (kharvot; devastation !!!) ofYәrushâlayim for 70 years” (Dâniyeil 9:2).
How is it that R. Singer sees no difference between “the saying to devastate Yәrushâlayim for 70 years” and “the saying to restore and build Yәrushâlayim“?!?
Dâniyeil explicitly and plainly states “the saying to restore and build Yәrushâlayim“!
This is irrefutably the decree by Artakhshast I in B.C.E. 453!!!
R. Singer’s uses Hebrew calendar datings to obfuscate the fact that his dates have nothing to do with the consistent datings of the Hebrew calendar, the secular calendar, history and reality. Example: Cyrus / or Koresh, reigned from B.C.E. 559-529 (EJ, 5.1184). Even R. Singer shows that the destruction of the Beit-ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ was within one year of the dating we give inChronology of the Tan”kh from the ‘Big Bang’, which equates 70 C.E. with 3830 (R. Singer gives 3829). Since the Hebrew calendar depends on the season of the year on the secular calendar, we’ll not quibble about one year.
Calculating the zero point between the years B.C.E. 1 and C.E. 1 (there was no “zero” year) yields 3830—70 = 3760. So do all of the major calendar calculating programs and websites.
R. Singer gives the reign of Cyrus as 3390-3393. He doesn’t tell his readers that this Hebrew date equates to B.C.E. 370-367. However, all history books are in close agreement that Cyrus reigned from B.C.E. 559-529 (EJ, 5.1184)!!! R. Singer glosses over his gross distortion of historical dates—by nearly two centuries! It’s, therefore, חוצפה (khutzpah; audacity) when he complains that Christians manipulate facts!
Artakhshast I (Artaxerxes), “In the later, calmer years of his reign, ‘appointed [Nәkhëm•yâh′] governor of [Yәhud•âh′] with authority to fortify [Yәrushâlayim]” (EJ,3.647).
This proclamation or edict is described more clearly in non-Jewish history books. Nevertheless, EJ’s description is enough to see that [Artakhshast I] issued such a decree—and when. While seemingly intentionally avoiding giving a date directly, EJ goes on to zero-in on the approximate date of this saying to return and build Yәrushâlayim. “It was probably during these troubled first three-fifths of his reign that the provincial authorities of [the Sho•mәr•on′] were able to persuade the king that the rebuilding of [Yәrushâlayim's] walls by the Jews constituted a threat to his authority” (ibid. 647).
The only viable way that the issue of rebuilding Yәrushâlayim could have come to the fore is if a proclamation had already been issued—i.e., sometime during the “first three-fifths of his reign”—and the rebuilding had begun causing anxieties. He reigned 40 years. Each fifth is then 8 years. The first 3/5 was then 24 years beginning in B.C.E. 465. This narrows the period to B.C.E. 465-441.
If we simply take the middle of this period to be in the ball park, (465 + 441) / 2, we arrive at B.C.E. 453.
This date, in agreement with the consensus of modern scholars, is the date we used for our calculations in The 1993 Covenant.
“In the later, calmer years of his reign, he appointed [Nәkhëm•yâh′] governor of Rib′i Yәho•shu′a] with authority to fortify [Yәrushâlayim]” (ibid.), i.e., after considering the possibility of a threat to his authority, he determined that, rather, rebuilding Yәrushâlayim was an extension of his authority, confirming his earlier proclamation of c. B.C.E. 453.
Even more shocking, and contradicting virtually all of the Judaic Sages, R. Singer labels the destruction of the Beit-ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ in 70 C.E. as the beginning of the “Messianic Age”!?! (p. 41). Please therefore, might he tell us, the name of the Mâ•shi′akh who, in 70 C.E., must have come in victory according to all popular Jewish interpretations of Messianic prophecies? This is news to the Judaic world!
This is certainly nowhere near an exhaustive list of R. Singer’s mistakes. But it should be far more than sufficient. One mistake is sufficient.
An understanding of Dâniyeil‘s prophecy that doesn’t depend on “mistakes” on the part of Dâniyeil or Yi•rәmәyâh′u ha-Nâ•vi′ is found in Chapter 10 of The 1993 Covenant.
See also Yәsha•yâh′u 44.28—45.1, 13; Dâniyeil 9.1-3, 13-27; Yi•rәmәyâh′u 25.12; 29.10; Ë′zәr•â 1.1-3 and Divrei ha-Yâm•im′ Beit 36.21- 23.”
[Quote from Parashat ha-Shavua of the website of Netzarim in Ra'anana in Israel]
It is a mitzwah – directive – of Torah (Devarim – Deuteronomy – 18:15f) - to follow a nâvi of haSheim; and Rabbi Yeshua was a prophet: Documentation.
Now that you know that Rabbi Yeshua was the Mashiach, I also recommend you to follow him. You can learn more here in this article on my other blog: Link