So, you’re really trying to equate Biblical prophecy with astrology?

Comment on Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes by Sean Pitman.

So, you’re really trying to equate Biblical prophecy with astrology? Why then accept Biblical prophecy as valid and astrology as nonsense? Why have “faith” in one and not the other?

I see you skipped over my argument for the succession of kingdoms to argue against the 70 weeks prophecy? No matter, the 70 weeks prophecy, though it requires a bit more research, is quite clear as well. Just because there are alternative interpretations, as there are for most if not all scientific theories, doesn’t mean that they all make sense or are equally valid.

In any case, as you mention, there are four decrees in the Bible given to rebuild Jerusalem:

(1) Ezra 1:1-14, 1st year of Cyrus, dated to 538 B.C.
(2) Ezra 6:1-12, 2nd year of Darius dated to 520 B.C.
(3) Ezra 7:1-27, 7th year of Artaxerxes dated to 457 B.C.
(4) Neh 2:1-8, 20th year of Artaxerxes dated to 444 B.C.

Because there are four different decrees concerning the exiles and Jerusalem, a bit of research is required to determine the correct starting date. Which one of these decrees is the fulfillment of Daniel 9:25?

In short, there are really only two decrees – the decree of Cyrus to rebuild the temple and the first decree of Artaxerxes to rebuilt the entire city and government. The other two decrees are simply restatements of these original decrees that were not being fully carried out or which were being questioned.

In any case, let’s consider each one of them and see which one is the most reasonable candidate:

First, let’s consider the degree of Cyrus. According to Isaiah 44:28 and 45:13 Cyrus was (1) to rebuild the city, and (2) to set the exiles free to go to Jerusalem. Isaiah uses the verb “bana” (to build) employed also by Daniel, but not the verb “shûb” (restore). In its place we find the verb “shalach” (to send, let go free). This is somewhat different from what we have in Daniel and, more importantly, quite different from its presumed fulfillment recorded in Ezra 1:2-4 (a summary of Cyrus’ decree). In short, what is built under Cyrus’ decree is only the temple, not the city.

Of course, some have argued that when Cyrus authorized the rebuilding of the temple he was in fact authorizing the rebuilding of the whole city. However, there is no evidence in Ezra and Nehemiah or anywhere else in the Bible that would suggest that the exiles understood Cyrus’ decree to be an authorization to rebuild the city. So, The decree of Cyrus recorded in Ezra 1:2-4 does not meet the requirements stipulated by Daniel’s prophecy because it allows only for the rebuilding of the temple and does not address the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem.

The second decree is the one by Darius in 520 B.C. According to Ezra 5, Zerubbabel and Joshua, under the influence of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, reinitiated the project of rebuilding the temple several years after it was stopped. When Tatnai, governor of the province, saw the building activities, he questioned the legal basis for what they were doing and wrote a letter to Darius asking him to verify the information he had obtained from the Jews in Jerusalem. An investigation was made and the decree of Cyrus was found. Consequently, Darius issued another decree confirming the first one (Ezra 6:3-12). The decree of Darius is not significantly different from Cyrus’ edict. The only important difference is that the king ordered Tatnai not to interfere with the project of rebuilding the temple and to impale anyone who would oppose it. Therefore, Darius’ decree is effectively the same as that of Cyrus and, for the same reasons, does not meet the requirements stipulated by Daniel’s prophecy.

The third decree is the one of Artaxerxes in 457 B.C. recorded in Ezra 7:12-26. This decree is significantly different from the previous ones partially because by then the temple had been finished. The decree of Artaxerxes also included several important elements: (1) Granted permission to the exiles to return to Jerusalem, (2) funds were assigned for the support of the temple in Jerusalem, (3) temple and temple personnel were tax exempted, (4) Ezra was to investigate the condition of the people in Judah, possibly in order to bring their lives into agreement with the Mosaic law, and (5) it established a legal system based on the Torah for a the Jews in Judeah and throughout the Trans-Euphrates province. This last point included setting up magistrates and judges to enforce the law. Of particular importance is vs. 26: “Whoever does not obey the law of your God and the law of the king must surely be punished by death, banishment, confiscation of property, or imprisonment.”

The Persian king made the Mosaic law “part of his own law” granting it imperial authority. The Jews could now use it freely to regulate their lives and in the administration of justice in Jerusalem. The king restored the authority of the Jews to govern themselves on the basis of the law of God. It is to this type of restoration that Daniel 9:25 was pointing in its prophetic announcement. The decree of Artaxerxes, recorded in Ezra 7, was comprehensive enough to permit the rebuilding of Jerusalem. In fact, the rebuilding of the city is implicit in the authorization to set up a judicial system at a central place based on the law of God. In addition, we also find clear evidence in Ezra and Nehemiah to the effect that Ezra was authorized to rebuild the city. The first line of evidence is found in Nehemiah 1. About 13 years after Ezra arrived at Jerusalem, Nehemiah is informed that those who returned to Palestine were “in great trouble and shame” and that “the walls of Jerusalem” were broken down and the gates destroyed by fire (1:3). The reaction of Nehemiah to this information (vs. 4) “is so strong that this report cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar some 140 years previously.” He would have known long before 444 B.C. what the Babylonian army had done to Jerusalem in 586 B.C.. Nehemiah is referring to a recent event and indicates that the rebuilding of the city had been in progress but was stopped and much of the work done had been damaged and/or destroyed. This rebuilding project took place before 444 B.C. but was unfinished. The question is, when did the rebuilding of the wall begin? Was it during the time of Cyrus, Darius or Artaxerxes? The biblical text provides a clear answer. According to Ezra 4:7-23 it took place during the reign of Artaxerxes.

The subsequent decree given by Artaxerxes to Nehemiah was simply a restatement of his original decree to do what he had already commanded should be done.

https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/70weeks%26457BC.pdf

So, in the words of Ellen White,

In Ezra 6:14 the house of the Lord at Jerusalem is said to have been built, “according to the decree of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.” The three kings did the one work; it was begun by Cyrus, carried forward by Darius, and completed by Artaxerxes. The scripture counts this collective action as one decree. That the later decrees were a continuation or completion of that of Cyrus, see Ezra 6:1-14. Taking B. C. 457 as the date of the commandment, every specification of the prophecy concerning the 70 weeks is fulfilled.

This understanding is also supported by the witness of the Gospel authors in their account of the “wise men” from the east determining, from the Jewish prophecies, that the time of the Messiah was near.

Beyond this, the fulfillment of the 70 weeks prophecy by the life and death of Christ, and the beginning of the Christian Church, is a dramatic example of the specificity of Biblical prophecy. It is very difficult to come up with any other rational alternative without turning one’s self into a pretzel in the process. The puzzle pieces fit together extremely well – which is absolutely amazing given the very strong evidence that Daniel was in fact written hundreds of years prior to the birth of Jesus. It is therefore not because of something like astrology that those like John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, and even Sir Isaac Newton connected the 70th week with the Messiah. It’s a very rational conclusion, empirically rational, given the evidence in hand…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

I was not clear enough in my comment. There are 14 ERV’s that are intact and able to produce virus that we share with the chimps.

This is not true. According to a study published in 2005, no human ERVs capable of replication have been identified; all appear to be defective as far as producing infective viruses is concerned due to major deletions or nonsense mutations.

Belshaw R, Dawson AL, Woolven-Allen J, Redding J, Burt A, Tristem M (Oct 2005). “Genomewide Screening Reveals High Levels of Insertional Polymorphism in the Human Endogenous Retrovirus Family HERV-K(HML2): Implications for Present-Day Activity”. J Virol. 79 (19): 12507–14.

These occur at the same location in the genome of both humans and chimps. There is no question as to the function of these 14 ERV’s. Some of these are associated with disease states in humans.

This is also not true. While many ERVs are being found to be functional, most of these functions are beneficial to one degree or another, and some are even vital to life. Also, there have been no proven cases of human ERVs causing disease.

“HERVs have frequently been proposed as etiological cofactors in chronic diseases such as cancer, autoimmunity and neurological disease. Unfortunately, despite intense effort from many groups, there remains little direct evidence to support these claims, and moreover some studies have served only to muddy the waters for others.” – http://genomebiology.com/2001/2/6/reviews/1017

“Many still manage to generate proteins, but scientists have never found one that functions properly in humans or that could make us sick.” – http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/071203fa_fact_specter

It’s like arguing that regular genes cause disease. The real reason for disease is a loss of regulation of the normal function of regular genes, and perhaps ERV sequences on occasion, due to random mutations that destroy their original functionality.

If these are a product of design by God then why is reverse transcriptase part of the code in these viruses? They could have been placed directly in the genome as DNA. Did God design us to have disease? Would it not be more likely that these represent the past viral attacks on a common ancestor which were then incorporated into the germ cell and passed on the future generations of descendants? It would only require one ERV to prove common descent and we have 14. Ask yourself what is more reasonable?

Your knowledge about ERVs is very inaccurate. There are many rational reason for ERV-type sequences to be included, by design, in our genome. As already mentioned, many ERV sequences are being discovered to produced beneficial effects – some are even vital to life. Some ERVs have even been shown to fight against infection by exogenous retriviruses:

“The HERV-W env gene product has also been shown to block infection by an exogenous retrovirus, suggesting that the expressed HERV-W env gene could have a beneficial function to the host (Ponferrada et al., 2003).” – http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/1203

“However, in the case of both Fv4 and Rmcf, the mode of defense is by the domesticated env gene blocking the receptor required for retrovirus entry.” – http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=
10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0010044

Beyond this, the theory that the ERV sequences within the human gene pool were derived from external viral infections is untenable given the population bottlenecks that would have been required to achieve this effect within the germline of humans or any other animal. Even modern retroviral infections never insert themselves within the germline cells of their host. Such a theory is based on something that is so extraordinarily unlikely that it hasn’t even been observed.

“No current transposition activity of HERVs or endogenization of human exogenous retroviruses has been documented so far.” – http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/suppl_2/14572

“Most of these elements represent ancient retroviral infections, as evidenced by their wide distribution in primate species, and no infectious counterparts of human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are known to exist today.” – http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/6/1668

In any case, for further details along these lines, please refer to these detailed discussions of ERVs:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html#Endogenous
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/endogenous_retroviruses.html

Sean Pitman

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
We share far more than 14 ERVs with chimps.

Not too long ago it was thought that around 30,000 ERVs existed within the human/ape genomes, comprising between 1-8% of each. As of the 2005 Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, where the entire chimpanzee genome was compared to the human genome, it is now thought that approximately 200,000 ERVs, or portions of ERVs, exist within the genomes of both humans and apes – totaling around 127 million base pairs (around 4% of the total genomic real estate). Some authors suggests a 45% ERV origin for the human genome at large (Mindell and Meyer 2001) and 50% for mammalian species in general, if all small fragments of ERV sequences are included in the estimate. In any case, of these hundreds of thousands of recognizable portions of ERVs, the vast majority of them seem to match up, at the very same loci, between humans and chimps. Less than 1% of the ERVs are lineage specific for either humans or apes. In other words, the vast majority of ERVs are shared or “orthologous” between humans and chimps (a significant increase from the seven or so that were once thought to infect both humans and chimps at identical locations).

So, doesn’t this make the case all that much stronger than humans and apes share a common ancestor? After all, what kind of intelligent designer would have put so much shared “junk” in both of our genomes?

Well, recent research is turning out some surprising discoveries on what was once thought to be junk-DNA. Much of what was thought to be junk is turning out to be functional to one degree or another – to include ERVs.

For more information on this most interesting topic, please visit:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html

Sean Pitman

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Now you’re just projecting. How about putting your own ideas to the test and see where they stand? Isn’t it a bit strange that I’m willing to respond to questions and challenges regarding my position, but you are not? Are you willing to even consider that you might be wrong? What kind of evidence or demonstration would that take? – short of a conversion of most scientists?

I’ve spelled out quite clearly that my position is easily falsifiable and that I’d be more than willing to leave Adventism and even Christianity behind as convincingly falsified if reasonable evidence supporting the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism, or any other mindless naturalistic mechanism, could be produced… or that life has actually existed and evolved on this planet over hundreds of millions of years. I have no desire to believe in any falsehood – not matter how attractive it may seem to me. I really do desire to know the truth and follow where it leads as I am able to discover it.

What about you? What would make you leave agnosticism behind and consider that a personal God who thinks about you and cares for you and died for you actually exists?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

P.S. By the way, science is also required to make leaps of faith. Science isn’t about absolute proof or demonstration. Science is about taking what little is known and using it to make educated leaps of faith into that which is not and cannot be known with absolute confidence.