Walvoord claims that Daniel 9's 70 weeks prophecies was 490 YEARS
AGREED! -- Walvoord wrote the VERY BEST book on Daniel's prophecies BECAUSE HE SHARED THE OPINIONS OF THE SCHOLARS! But in the end, Walvoord IGNORED HIS SCHOLARS and followed the conventional "wisdom" (and I use that term loosely) of the commentators. If you want the TRUTH, -- FOLLOW THE SCHOLARS. If you want to be lied to, follow the commentators, -- including Walvoord himself.
... how do you come to figure 1948.
It's not 1948 precisely. The angel simply says that the prophecies are "
shut up and sealed until the TIME OF THE END", -- which is approximate to 1948.
And Young offers an additional perspective:
“[Per Young] This phrase has reference to the issuance of the word, not from a Persian ruler but from God. Young goes on to point out that the expression the commandment, which he insists is better translated “a word” (Heb. Dābār; cf. 2Ch 30:5) is also found is Daniel 9:23 for a word from God.”[1]
[1] John Walvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 224
... and given the guidance in
9:2 regarding perceiving "
in the BOOKS", Daniel did not use the simple "
shama" typical of reading the Book of Jeremiah, but rather the MUCH MORE SUBSTANTIAL "
biyn" (see
1 Kings 3, what Solomon asked for, versus what GOD gave him). And so given the premise offered by J.R. Church in his book "
Hidden Prophecies In The Psalms", we can FIND the "
going forth of the word" as GIVEN BY GOD HIMSELF, exactly as Young observed, but couldn't solve.
... only Daniel 12 was kept for the time of the end.
Yeah, you're right. That's why Montgomery says there is NO historical fulfillment for Daniel 9, and the Abbingdon says there is a "legion" of interpretations for Daniel 9. Yep, there is such clarity according to the commentators, -- NOT!
... what is the beginning of the 2300 day prophecy ...
Perhaps there are OTHER aspects which lead to the 2,300 that should be evaluated FIRST. And things ARE NOT as you might suppose. Certainly there is a sequence of World Empires which must be transcended, but the target prophecy is for the "end times". Maybe you could start by answering who the Ram's two horns represent, and as please be aware that although both Julius Caesar Octavian & Marcus Antony had a co-rulership from 46-31BC, Cyrus NEVER had a co-ruler. And PLEASE don't insult me with a contrived "history" or FALSE theories about "Darius the Mede".
... the Maggi knew when Christ would be born through prophecies. ...
A does not necessarily equal B. To be specific, Daniel 9 has NOTHING TO DO with Jesus:
Lev. 4:3 If the priest that is anointed H4899 do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.
The word "
mâshîyach" is a term used for ANY King or Priest who is anointed with oil. The commentators leave 37 instances uncapitalized, and then CAPITALIZE two instances where they contrive a FALSE narrative. -- Consider the "seven and sixty-two" as though we are presented with a sum value of SIXTY-NINE. Newton observed that it does VIOLENCE TO SCRIPTURE, and that if GOD had intended to say SIXTY-NINE, HE would have said SIXTY-NINE. So the RSV is correct that there is an "anointed" king after the seven, and a second "anointed" king after the sixty-two.
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing ...
... Daniel 9 wasn't hard to understand, and Jesus even rebukes the Jews for not figuring it out ...
Matt. 24 is not NOT an ancient fulfillment and associated "rebuke". It's a future warning with a modern fulfillment, which is yet to be fulfilled.
But if you like the lies of the commentators, DON'T -- whatever you do, DON'T read what the Scholars and Historians say. Because they resoundingly refute their lies based upon the LITERAL Scripture and UNFULFILLED Ancient History, -- and I would propose FULFILLED
Modern History. -- Perhaps you should read the Psalms in context! :)
Bobby Jo