Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution Quotes: Unclassified quotes: November 2008

[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; C/E quotes: Unclassified, Classified] [CED blog]

The following are quotes added to my Unclassified Quotes database in November 2008. The date format is dd/mm/yy.
See copyright conditions at end.

[Index: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Dec]

"[Dn 9:]1:1 third year. According to the Babylonian system of computing the years of a king's reign, the third 
year of Jehoiakim would have been 605 B.C., since his first full year of kingship began on New Year's Day 
after his accession in 608. But according to the Judahite system, which counted the year of accession as the 
first year of reign, this was the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer 25:1; 46:2). 1:2 carried off. Judah was exiled to 
Babylonia because she disobeyed God's word regarding covenantkeeping, the sabbath years and idolatry 
(see Lev 25:1-7; 26:27-35; 2Ch 36:14-21). The first deportation (605 B.C.) included Daniel, and the second 
(597) included Ezekiel. A third deportation took place in 586, when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and 
the temple." (Barker, K.*, ed., "The NIV Study Bible," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1985, p.1300) 

"[Dn 9:] Vs. 2. In the first year of his reign] Daniel perceived in the Books the number of the years that the word of 
the Lord was unto Jeremiah the prophet to complete with respect to the desolations of Jerusalem seventy 
years. The mention of the date is deliberate in order to call attention to the time. Babylon was now fallen 
and the liberating country was in the first year of its sovereignty. The time had come in which to expect the 
end of the captivity. ... The number] .... The reference is probably to Jer. 25:9-11, `And this whole land 
shall be a desolations and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy-
years' (vs. 11), and also to Jer. 29. That the word] - lit., which the word. ... To complete] - The thought 
may be paraphrased: `With respect to the desolation of Jerusalem, 70 years must be completed.' This 
desolation began with the captivity of Dan. and the first devastation of Jerusalem in 606 B. C., the third year 
of Jehoiakim. Hence, in the first year of Darius, the period of desolation would be almost expired. This seems 
to be the reckoning in 2 Chr. 36:21-23; Ezra 1:1 ff. Many, however, regard the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 
as the terminus a quo. But if this were correct Dan. would not now in the first year of Darius feel that the 
time was nearing its completion. This view would not explain why he gives himself over to prayer." (Young, 
E.J.*, "A Commentary on Daniel," Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, 1949, Reprinted, 1978, pp.183-184)

"[Dn 9:] 1. In the first year of Darius. That is, 539/538 B.C:, sixty-seven years after Daniel's transportation 
in the summer of 605 B.C.- about fifty-nine years from the beginning of King Jehoiachin's captivity (II Chr 
36:9,10, Ezk 1:1ff.); a bit less than fifty years from the final destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. This explains 
Daniel's interest in Jerusalem (Dan 9:2) . He wondered if the time was up. Made king over the realm of the 
Chaldeans. Daniel does not confuse him with Cyrus. He was made king, i.e., appointed, and that not over 
the Medo-Persian empire but over Babylonia only. 2. The number of the years. The reference seems to be to 
Jer 25:11,12, which says, `when seventy years are accomplished ... I will punish the king of Babylon.' That 
king had already been punished; so Daniel knew it was time for the desolations of Jerusalem also to be 
ended. Seventy is a round number, it was actually sixty- eight. Cf. Lk 21:26." (Culver, R.D.*, "Daniel," in 
Pfeiffer, C.F. & Harrison, E.F., eds., "The Wycliffe Bible Commentary," Oliphants: London, 1962, Reprinted, 
1963, p.792)

"[Dn 9:] 1. first year of Darius-Cyaxares II, in whose name Cyrus, his nephew, son-in-law, and successor, 
took Babylon, 538 B.C. The date of this chapter is therefore 537 B.C., a year before Cyrus permitted the Jews 
to return from exile, and sixty-nine years after Daniel had been carried captive at the beginning of the 
captivity, 606 B.C. son of Ahasuerus-called Astyages by Xenophon. Ahasuerus was a name common to 
many of the kings of Medo-Persia. made king - The phrase implies that Darius owed the kingdom not to 
his own prowess, but to that of another, viz., Cyrus. 2. understood by books - rather, letters, i e., 
Jeremiah's letter (Jer. 29:10) to the captives in Babylon; also Jeremiah 25:11, 12; cf. II Chronicles 36:21; 
Jeremiah 30:18; 31:38. ... So Daniel is informed of a long period of seventy prophetic weeks before Messiah's 
coming, instead of seventy years, as he might have expected (cf. Matt. 18:21, 22)" (Jamieson, R.*, Fausset, 
A.R.*, & Brown, D.*, "Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible," [1869], Oliphants/Zondervan: 
Grand Rapids MI, Revised Edition, 1961, Reprinted, 1966, pp.753-754)

"According to the date formulas, the visions of chs. 7-12 are intermixed chronologically with the events of 
chs. 1-6. Nebuchadnezzar's first dream is dated in the second year of his reign (603/2; 2:11). Belshazzar's 
feast and the handwriting on the wall (5:30) must be dated to the day that Babylon fell to the Medo-Persian 
power, 12 October 539. His first year (7:1) is dated ca. 554, and the third year (8:1) ca. 552. The first year of 
Darius the Mede (see 9:1) however the name is interpreted-is to be placed in the first year of the Persian 
hegemony (538). If he is taken to be Darius I in 11:1, the first year would be 520. The third year of Cyrus 
(10:1) would be 536." (La Sor, W.S.*, Hubbard, D.A.* & Bush, F.W.*, "Old Testament Survey: The Message, 
Form, and Background of the Old Testament," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1982, Reprinted, 1987, p.665)

"The biblical references to the first year of Cyrus when he made the proclamation which allowed the Jewish 
exiles to return from Babylon to Jerusalem (II Ch 36:22f.; Ezr 1:1ff.) are presumably stated in terms of his reign 
in Babylon since they deal with an event in that city. According to the cuneiform evidence and the 
Babylonian calendar, Babylon fell on Tashritu 16 = Oct 12, 539 B.C., and Cyrus entered the city two and 
onehalf weeks later on Arahsamnu 3 = Oct 29. His Babylonian regnal years began ... Acession 539/538. Year 
1 538/537. Year 2 537/536. Accordingly his first year, in which he made the proclamation, was 538/537 B.C." 
(Finegan, J.*, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and 
Problems of Chronology in the Bible," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1964, p.170)

"In the second year of [Cyrus] the return of the exiles to Jerusalem Zerubbabel began the rebuilding of the 
Temple (Ezr 3:8). Then the work was interrupted and not resumed until the second year of Darius (Ezr 4:24) 
and it was completed in the sixth year of Darius on the third day of the month Adar (Ezr 6:15). The same 
dates are also given by Josephus. [Against Apion. I, 154] The beginning of the reign of Darius has been 
shown .... If we now expand and continue our summary of the Chronicle at the point of the 
transition to and beginning of the reign of Darius, we have ... 522 [BC]" (Finegan, J.*, "Handbook of Biblical 
Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible," 
Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1964, pp.170-171)

"Alleged Greek loan words ... It is now pretty well agreed that there are but three words in the Aramaic of 
Daniel that have undoubtedly been borrowed from Greek. All of them are names of musical instruments: 
qayteros, derived from kitharis ('lyre,' `zither'); pesanterin, from psalterion ('trigon'); and 
sumponeyah, from symphonia ('harmony,' `bagpipe'). These all occur in a list of instruments played by 
the royal symphony orchestra in Daniel 3:5, 10, 15. How could such words have been part of the vocabulary 
of sixth-century B.C. Aramaic in Babylon? Very easily, for the inscriptions of Sargon II (722-705) back in the 
Assyrian period refer to Greek captives from Cyprus and Ionia sold into slavery. ... Greek mercenaries and 
slaves served in the Babylonian and Assyrian periods, some of whom were undoubtedly versed in Greek 
music and musical instruments. It is no more surprising that Greek names for these instruments were 
borrowed by Aramaic than that `piano' and `viola' were borrowed into our language from Italian." (Archer, 
G.L.*, "Daniel," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets," 
Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1985, Vol. 7, pp.20-21. Emphasis original)

"On the other hand, it is inconceivable that Greek terms for government and administration would not have 
been adopted into Aramaic by the second century B.C. if Greek had indeed been the language of 
government for over 160 years between 332 and 167 B.C.). It is evident that the language of Daniel was a 
lingua franca that readily absorbed foreign terms in precisely this area. There are approximately fifteen 
Persian derivatives pertaining to government and administration that appear in the Aramaic chapters of 
Daniel. Even the Hebrew chapters contain Persian words like 'appeden ('palace' [11:45], from apadana), 
partemim ('noblemen' [1:3], from fratama), patbag ('king's portion' [1:5], from patibaga). All this 
points unquestionably to composition in the Persian period (c. 530 B.C.). But it renders a later date in the 
post-Alexandrian period linguistically impossible." (Archer, G.L.*, "Daniel," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The 
Expositor's Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1985, Vol. 7, 

"A second line of evidence is found in the translation errors committed by the LXX of Daniel, which was 
written in the second century B.C., in Maccabean or Hasmonean times. If Daniel itself had been composed in 
second-century Aramaic, as the late-date theory maintains, then there should have been no difficulty in 
rendering any of the technical terms into Greek. But even in the single verse of Daniel 3:2, we find that the 
LXX translates 'adargazerayya' ('counselors') by hypatous ('magnates'); gedaberayya' ('treasurers') by 
dioiketas ('administrators'); and tiptaye' or detaberayya` ('magistrates,' `judges') by the vague, 
general phrase tous ep' exousion ('those in authority'). It is impossible to explain how within a few 
decades after the alleged composition of Daniel in the 160s B.C., the meaning of these terms could have 
been so completely forgotten by the Alexandrian Jews who composed the LXX that they did not know how 
to translate them correctly ..." (Archer, G.L.*, "Daniel," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The Expositor's Bible 
Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1985, Vol. 7, p.22)

"The prophecy of the Seventy Weeks In our discussion of Daniel 9, we will devote much attention to the 
prediction of the Seventy Weeks, set forth in Daniel 9:24-27. Here we simply point out that the term `weeks' 
(rendered in NIV as `sevens') is sabu'im, from h always takes a feminine plural, sebu'ot, 
when it means a seven of days, namely, a `week.' The masculine plural here probably indicates that the word 
is meant as a heptad ... of years. The figure 70 corresponds to the 70 years of the Babylonian captivity, but 
this predictive number adds up to 70 times 7, or 490 years. It appears, however, from 9:25 that at first only 7 
plus 62 are being discussed, and so it is at the end of 483 years that the `Anointed One' will appear. The 
terminus a quo for this 483-year period is stated in 9:25 to be the issuing of a `decree to restore and 
rebuild Jerusalem'; the terminus ad quem is to be the coming of the `Anointed One' (masiah, nagid, 
lit., `Messiah Prince'). As the exegesis in the commentary will show, the above-mentioned decree was 
probably that of Artaxerxes I in 457 B.C., issued to Ezra in connection with his return to Palestine. While he 
did not actually accomplish the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, he was evidently given royal permission 
to do so (Ezra 9:9), if he could find sufficient resources and support to carry through with it (hence 
Nehemiah's great disappointment in 445 B.C., when he found out that the project had not been accomplished 
[Neh 1:3-4]). Reckoning, then, from 457 B.C., we come out to A.D. 26 as the full number of 483 years-with one 
more gained as we pass directly from 1 B. C. to A. D. 1. This results in the precise date of A. D. 27 for 
Christ's appearance as Messiah of Israel. If he was crucified in A.D. 30, as is generally believed, and if his 
ministry lasted for three years, then A.D. 27 would be the accurate date of fulfillment of this remarkable 
prophecy." (Archer, G.L.*, "Daniel," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Daniel and 
the Minor Prophets," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1985, Vol. 7, p.26. Emphasis original)

"For this amazing pattern of prediction and fulfillment, there can be no successful answer on the part of 
critics who espouse the Maccabean date hypothesis. There is no evading the conclusion that the 
prophecies of the Book of Daniel were inspired by the same God who later fulfilled them, or who will fulfill 
them in the last days, which are destined to close our present era with the final great conflict of Armageddon 
and the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Archer, G.L.*, "Daniel," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The 
Expositor's Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1985, Vol. 7, 

"[Dn 9:]1-3 ... As Daniel studied Jeremiah 25:11-13, he saw that God had appointed a period of seventy years 
for the captivity of Israel (v.2), at the end of which Babylon itself would be smitten by a God-directed stroke 
of judgment. Daniel was gripped by these words in Jeremiah 29:10: `When seventy years are completed for 
Babylon, I ,will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place [Jerusalem].' 
`Seventy years?' Daniel asked himself, `When did those seventy years begin? How soon would they end?' 
Now since this episode (v. 1) took place in 539 or 538 `the first year of Darius son of Xerxes [Ahasuerus]'), 
less than fifty years had elapsed since the Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar (587 B.C.) or the destruction 
of the temple in 586. But for the earliest possible terminus a quo for the seventy years of exile, the year of 
Daniel's own captivity in Babylon (604 B.C.) would be the starting point for the seven decades. Now while 
538 might be three or four years short of the full seventy, it was not too soon for Daniel to begin praying 
(v.3). In view of the recent collapse of the Chaldean Empire and the benevolent attitude of Cyrus the Great 
toward the religious preferences of his newly conquered subjects, Daniel was moved to claim the promise 
implied by the number seventy in the Jeremiah passages he had just read. So he implored the Lord God to 
reckon those years from the year of his own exile and to ensure the reestablishment of the Commonwealth of 
Israel in the Land of Promise by seventy years from the first Palestinian invasion of King Nebuchadnezzar." 
(Archer, G.L.*, "Daniel," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor 
Prophets," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1985, Vol. 7, p.107)

"[Jer ]25:1-14. Desolation is confirmed This passage is dated in 605 BC, the fourth year of Jehoiakim, in 
which the crucial battle of Carchemish was fought. The result of this was that the Egyptians were routed and 
Babylon incorporated Judah into her empire as a tributary (2 Ki. 24:1). Earlier scholarly allegations of an 
anachronism in which the fourth year of Jehoiakim in verse 1 was equated with the third year of that same 
king in Dn. 1:1 are now known to have been based on a misunderstanding of ancient Near Eastern methods 
of chronological compilation. In seventh-century BC Palestine, the accession year was counted as the first 
year of the reign, whereas in Babylonia the accession year was reckoned separately, being then followed by 
the first year of the actual reign. Jeremiah thus reckoned according to the current Palestinian method while 
Daniel followed that used in Babylonia. LXX omitted the gloss relating to Nebuchadnezzar." (Harrison, R.K.*, 
"Jeremiah and Lamentations: An Introduction and Commentary," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 1973, 
Reprinted, 1981, pp.124-125. Emphasis original)

"[Jer 25:11-12] The seventy years of exile is a round figure, being reckoned from the fourth year of 
Jehoiakim (605 BC) to the start of the return under Cyrus' regime, about 536 BC (cf. Zc, 1:12; 2 Ch. 36:20-23).." 
(Harrison, R.K.*, "Jeremiah and Lamentations: An Introduction and Commentary," Inter-Varsity Press: 
Leicester UK, 1973, Reprinted, 1981, p.126)

"[Dn 9:] 1. In the first year of Darius, the king already named in 5:31 and chapter 6, is distinguished here 
from Darius Hystaspes, who came to the throne in 522 BC and is referred to in Ezra 4:24ff., Haggai and 
Zechariah. Son of Ahasuerus, or Xerxes in its Greek form, is a name which occurs in Ezra 4:6 and in the 
book of Esther, but belongs to a fifth-century king (486-465/4). ... `it is ... now recognized that Xerxes 
(Ahasuerus) may be an ancient Achaemenid royal "title"' [Wiseman, D.J., ed., "Notes on Some Problems in 
the Book of Daniel," Tyndale Press: London, 1965, p.15]. W. F. Albright has argued that the name Darius 
may be an old Iranian title, [Albright, W.F., "The Date and Personality of the Chronicler," JBL, 40, 1921, 
p.112n] and while this remains a theory it is in keeping with known history for a monarch to have more than 
one name, as, e.g., in the case of Tiglath-Pileser who is also called Pul (2 Ki. 15:19, 29; 1 Ch. 5:26). Whatever 
the identity of Darius,' the writer has in mind the first year of the Persian empire, 539 BC, and referred. to in 
Ezra 1:1 as the first year of Cyrus king of Persia." (Baldwin, J.G.*, "Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary," 
Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries," Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, 1978, pp.163-164)

"Jer 25:11b-12a; 29:10a, 28 (1 v.): in 604 B.C. (25:11-12) the prophet predicted a service for 70 years to the 
king of Babylon. He therefore counseled the exiles of 597 to make provision for permanent life in Babylon, 
29:5-7. More generally, v. 28, `The captivity is long.' Fulfillment ...: the exile extended technically from 
the first deportation of Judah in 605 B.C. (Dan 1:1-4) to one of the following dates: 539, the Persian capture 
of Babylon; 538, the decree of Cyrus authorizing the return; 537, by the fall of which the first returnees had 
come to Palestine, Ezra 3:1-2; or 536, when the temple's reconstruction commenced, v. 8." (Payne, J.B.*, 
"Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment," 
Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1973, Fourth printing, 1997, p.339)

"Dan 9:24a, 25c: `Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people ... from the commandment to build Jerusalem 
unto Messiah [ASVmg] shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.' The term shavu'im, is not the usual 
(fem.) form for `weeks', and would best be rendered as `heptads,' meaning `units or periods of seven.' Keil 
seems properly to argue that since Jeremiah's 70 years were almost completed at this time in 538 B.C. (see 9:2 
... above), Daniel's periods must extend further than Jeremiah's and denote 70 units of seven years each, or 
490 years in all. After 7, and then 62, of these `weeks' or heptads (= 483 years) is to come the fulfillment ... in 
the anointing of Jesus-the very title `Messiah' meaning anointed .... This anointing, in turn, occurred at His 
baptism (Acts 10:38), which may be dated to A.D. 26. [Finegan, J., "Handbook of Biblical Chronology," 1964, 
pp.298-301] By counting 483 years before this event, one reaches 458 B.C. and the year of Ezra's return to 
Jerusalem; see v. 25 ..." (Payne, J.B.*, "Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural 
Predictions and Their Fulfillment," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1973, Fourth printing, 1997, pp.382-383)

"Expositions of Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks (9:24-27) usually fall into one of four clearly 
distinguishable schools of interpretation ... In reference to the commencement of the 70 weeks (the first 
point in ... 9:25), liberal writers may also take this date from Jeremiah's original prophecy, in 604 B.C., so as to 
bring the termination closer to Maccabean times; but even this is still 50 years too many. Dispensational 
writers usually begin with the decree granted to Nehemiah, in 444, so as to bring the date later, to Christ's 
triumphal entry; but such a point of departure takes it 10 years too far, so a shortened `prophetic year' of 360 
days is sometimes introduced. But while in early Israel the months seem to have had 30 days each (Gen 8:3-
4, cf. 7:11; Num 20:29; and Dt 34:8, cf. 21:13), the total calendar was always kept oriented to the solar and 
agricultural year by adding 5 or 6 days at the end of a year or, at the latest, a 13th intercalated month after 
several years. Leupold's attempt to apply (symbolically) the first 7 weeks to the period up to Jesus Christ, 
and the next 62 weeks on into the future, has been subject to wide criticism. Montgomery, for example, 
remarks, `However the 70 weeks are to be interpreted, whether historically, apocalyptically, or mystically, 
certain principles must be followed, if the writer meant anything sensible. The total 70 must be obtained in 
addition; [and] the denomination must remain the same: week cannot be a variable quantity, as now a 
septennium and now some other quantity of time.'" [Montgomery, J.A., "A Critical and Exegetical 
Commentary on the Book of Daniel," T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, 1926, p. 383]" (Payne, J.B.*, "Encyclopedia 
of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment," Baker: Grand 
Rapids MI, 1973, Fourth printing, 1997, pp.383,386) 

"Dan 9:24b, 26a (1 v.): the divinely intended purpose of the 70 weeks is `to restrain [ASVmg, Heb. kala'] 
transgression, to seal up sins [ASVmg, Heb. hatham, in the sense of reserve for punishment, Job 
14:17], to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and 
prophecy.' Concerning this last point Young comments, `When Christ came, there was no further need of 
prophecy in the OT sense.' All these saving actions would be accomplished by the Messiah's being cut off, 
and having nothing, `after the 62 weeks,' v. 26, and, as expressed in greater detail in v. 27, `in the midst of the 
last week.' The central portion of v. 26 may well refer to this same climactic event, translating with the variant 
Hebrew and versional reading, `... and the city and the sanctuary shall be destroyed ... along with the Prince 
that is to come,' that is, Messiah the Prince, just as in v. 25.68 Fulfillment ... Christ's atoning death, which has 
been calculated to have occurred on Apr. 7, A.D. 30, 3  years after His baptism ...." (Payne, J.B.*, 
"Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment," 
Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1973, Fourth printing, 1997, pp.386-387)

"Dan 9:24c, 25b: an added goal of the 70 weeks, `to anoint the Most Holy.' Fulfillment (per. 13): Christ's 
anointing by the Holy Spirit at His baptism (John 3:34; and see No. 34, above).' Liberalism would refer this 
phrase to the cleansing of the altar by Judas Maccabeus in 165 B.C. ... and others would refer it to a future 
consecration of the Jewish nation or of their temple; but Daniel's contextual stress is upon Jesus as 
`Messiah,' meaning `the anointed one,' vv. 25-26." (Payne, J.B.*, "Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The 
Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1973, Fourth 
printing, 1997, p.387)

"Dan 9:25a, 10:20a (2 vv.): that the 70 weeks are to commence with "the commandment to restore and to 
build Jerusalem ... it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times," 9:25. This same 
rebuilding is suggested by 10:20. Here a "man," v. 5-but in fact, probably Christ; compare His description in 
v. 6 with Rev 1:13-15 72 - informed Daniel, "Now will I return to fight with the prince [guardian angel, or 
demon?] of Persia." Keil refers this struggle to the various "hindrances put by the spirit of Persia, hostile to 
Israel, in the way of their rebuilding the temple ... and further, under Xerxes and Artaxerxes till the rebuilding 
of the walls of Jerusalem by Nehemiah." Fulfillment (per. 9): the decree granted to Ezra in 458, from which 
point onward Jerusalem's restoration did continue, despite setbacks. For opposition had to be faced by 
Nehemiah, both at his initial return to Judah in 444 to rebuild the walls and at his second governorship after 
430; the "troublous times" seem, in fact, to have persisted throughout Daniel's first 7 heptads of years, or to 
about 409 B.C." (Payne, J.B.*, "Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural 
Predictions and Their Fulfillment," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1973, Fourth printing, 1997, p.387)

"In the very year of Daniel's prophecy (538), Cyrus of Persia did issue an earlier decree which encouraged 
the return of the Jewish exiles to Palestine and authorized the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra 1:1-4; cf. Isa 
44:28). But this decree of Cyrus did not mention the rebuilding of the city or its walls. Such restoration came 
to pass only in the following century, in the reign of Artaxerxes I (465-424), under Nehemiah in 444. There 
had been, however, under the same monarch, a previous attempt at restoring the walls, which had been 
thwarted by the Samaritans (Ezra 4:11, 12, 23). This original effort must have occurred under Ezra in 458, 
whose decree from Artaxerxes granted him just such extended powers (7:18, 25; 9:9) ..." (Payne, J.B.*, 
"Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment," 
Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1973, Fourth printing, 1997, p.387)

"Dan 9:26b, 27b (2 vv.): that the city and sanctuary of Jerusalem - `thy holy city,' v. 24; cf. 6:10-are to be 
made desolate by war; `upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate,' 9:27. 
Young explains the wing of abominations as the pinnacle of the temple, considered to be an abomination, 
once Christ should terminate the system of OT sacrifice ... .' Then if the central phrase of v. 26 be rendered 
as `The people of the prince that shall come,' the leader there referred to would be equivalent to the person 
who maketh desolate (v. 27); but see ... above. Fulfillment ... the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman 
general Titus in A.D. 70." (Payne, J.B.*, "Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural 
Predictions and Their Fulfillment," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1973, Fourth printing, 1997, p.387)

"Dan 9:27a: `He shall confirm [KJV; lit., `cause to prevail'] the testament with many for one week; and in the 
midst of the week He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.' A primary exegetical consideration 
is that of determining the subject of these words, whether the Messiah of v. 26 or the prince who leads the 
attacking people (if this be a proper reading in any event ...). Young, however, seems justified in insisting 
that `the subject is Messiah... . To construe `prince' as subject does not appear to be the most natural 
reading, for the word occupies only a subordinate position in v. 26, where it is not even the subject of a 
sentence ... Furthermore this entire passage is Messianic in nature, and the Messiah is the leading character, 
the great terminus ad quem of the 69 sevens. They lead up to Him, who is their goal.' Fulfillment in 
Isa. ... 42:6a ..., Christ's embodiment of the redemptive testament of God. As the Servant of Yahweh, He 
proclaimed the gospel to Israel durinael during his 3-year ministry (Isa 42:1-4, Mt 12:17-21), thus confirming to them 
the grace of the divine testament (Isa 42:6). Next, upon Calvary, He brought to a close the OT economy of 
redemption, rending the veil of the temple (Mt 27:51) and causing legitimate typical sacrifice once and for all 
to cease (Heb 9:12). The 490 years of Daniel's 70 weeks then conclude with the latter 3 years of the final 
week, during which time the testament continued to be confirmed to Israel; cf. Acts 2:38. But this open 
message terminated with the stoning of Stephen; cf. 8:1, on the church being driven from Jerusalem.' The 
occasion, moreover, is datable to A.D. 33/34, the year to which Paul's conversion is to be assigned [Finegan, 
J., "Handbook of Biblical Chronology," 1964, pp.320-321]." (Payne, J.B.*, "Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: 
The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1973, Fourth 
printing, 1997, p.388)

"Dispensational writers commonly take Dan 9:27 as separated from, and subsequent to, v. 26 rather than as 
an explanation of it: and the subject who confirms the testament (or covenant) is held to be the prince of v. 
26, meaning the Antichrist. Serious problems, however, beset such a reconstruction. To note but a few: (1) it 
breaks up the sequence of the 70 weeks by introducing an interval before this last part; and, as 
Hengstenberg long ago cautioned, `The period of 70 hebdomads, or 490 years, is here predicted as one that 
will continue uninterruptedly from its commencement to its close ... what can be more evident than this? 
Exactly 70 weeks in all are to elapse; and how can anyone imagine that there is an interval between the 69 
and the 1, when these together make up the 70?' (2) it assumes an unprecedented covenant-making by the 
Antichrist, when Scripture contains no hint of any such covenant at all, let alone some earlier one that he 
could confirm at this point in Dan 9; and (3) it transforms a past prince of Rome into a future deputy of the 
devil, for as Young points out, `The emphasis of v. 26 is not upon a prince from a people, but upon the 
people who belong to the prince... . In other words, he must be their contemporary, alive when they are 
alive.'" (Payne, J.B.*, "Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and 
Their Fulfillment," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1973, Fourth printing, 1997, pp.388-389)

"25:1-14 Babylon's time The fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign, and the twenty-third of Jeremiah's ministry 
(reckoned inclusively, see 1:2) was 605 B.C. In that year Babylon, under Nebuchadnezzar, gained control of 
Syria and Palestine by defeating Egyptian forces at the battle of Carchemish on the Euphrates. Indeed, 
according to Dn. 1:1, some prisoners from Judah were taken in that year. Babylon was from this point clearly 
the force to fear. Jeremiah uses the time for a retrospect. He has preached continuously and consistently a 
message in line with that of other prophets who warned of judgment (4). The message (summarized in vs 4-6) 
had called to repentance and offered the chance of continued life in covenant and in the land (cf. Jeremiah's 
sermon in the temple; 7:3-7). It is given here only to show that it had not been heard (3, 7; cf 7:25-26). The 
words of judgment too (8-11) have the character of a summary, echoing earlier words (9c, cf. 24:9; 10, cf. 
16:9). The rise of Babylon, however, gives a new focus and ominousness to them. Not only Judah but other 
nations too will suffer at Babylon's hands (9, 11). A further new and dreadful note is sounded: Judah (and 
the nations) will be enslaved to Babylon for seventy years (12). The generation that goes into exile will 
never see their homeland again. This bad news, however, has a silver lining, because there will be an end to 
Babylon's strength, and therefore to the exile. Nebuchadnezzar has been God's servant (9) only as an agent 
of his punishment, but he himself has acted selfishly and cruelly in doing so. Babylon will therefore suffer 
God's punishment in turn (12, 14). Jeremiah is here seen as the prophet of Babylon's downfall, and thus 
becomes indeed a `prophet to the nations' (1:5). Babylon was to fall to the Medo-Persian Empire under the 
emperor Cyrus in 539 BC (see 2 Ch. 36:20-23). The seventy years may be counted either from 605, the date of 
the present prophecy and the year in which Nebuchadnezzar first took exiles, to 539, or soon after, when 
exiles began to return; or from 586, the date of the destruction of the temple, to 516, when it was rebuilt." 
(McConville, J.G., "Jeremiah," in Carson, D.A., et al., eds, "New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition," 
Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 1994, Reprinted, 1997, pp.691-692. Emphasis original) 

"The end coming (25:1-14). The date of this important prophecy which foretells the seventy year captivity 
is given precisely. The twenty-third year of Jeremiah's ministry in which he was openly acknowledged as 
the prophet (2; cf. 1-5) coincided with the decisive battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C. when Nebuchadrezzar 
II defeated Necho II of Egypt (46:2). Though still unheeded (4), the prophet's message is the same (5-7). The 
consequences of refusal to hear God's voice are now given as the failure of happiness, daily livelihood and 
inspiration (light, 8-10). All this will be brought about by the Babylonian invaders (the `evil of the north') 
and by their vassal tribes led by Nebuchadrezzar my servant, used by the Lord as His agent of judgment 
(8, cf. 4:5 ff.). Yet with the warning of judgment comes a note of hope in the limit of time set for captivity (11), 
though seventy years ensured that few if any of the exiles would return. The period ended c. 536 B.C. with 
the return of exiles following the decree of Cyrus ordering the return some time after his capture of Babylon 
in October 539 B.C." (Wiseman, D., "Jeremiah," in Bruce, F.F., ed., "The International Bible Commentary," 
[1979], Marshall Pickering / Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Second edition, 1986, Reprinted, 1994, p.779. 
Emphasis original)

"[Jer 25:]"1. fourth year of Jehoiakim-called the third year in Daniel 1:1. But probably Jehoiakim was set on 
the throne by Pharaoh-necho on his return from Carchemish about July, whereas Nebuchadnezzar mounted 
the throne January 21, 604 B.C; so that Nebuchadnezzar's first year was partly the third, partly the fourth, of 
Jehoiakim's. Here first Jeremiah gives specific dates. Nebuchadnezzar had previously entered Judea in the 
reign of his father Nabopolassar. 3. From the thirteenth year of Josiah, in which Jeremiah began to prophesy 
(ch. 1:1), to the end of Josiah's reign, was nineteen years (II Kings 22:1); the three months (II Kings 23:31) of 
Jehoahaz' reign, with the not quite complete four years of Jehoiakim (vs. 1), added to the nineteen years, 
make up twenty-three years in all. .... 10. (Ch. 7:34; Rev. 18:23.) The land shall be so desolated that even in 
the houses left standing there shall be no inhabitant; a terrible stillness shall prevail; no sound of the 
handmill (two circular stones, one above the other, for grinding corn, worked by two women, Exod. 11:5; 
Matt. 24:41; in daily use in every house, and therefore forbidden to be taken in pledge, Deut. 24:6); no night- 
light, so universal in the East that the poorest house has it, burning all night. candle-lamp (Job 21:17; 
18:6). 11. seventy years-(Ch. 27:7). The exact number of years of Sabbaths in 490 years, the period from 
Saul to the Babylonian captivity; righteous retribution for their violation of the Sabbath (Lev. 26:34, 35; II 
Chron. 36:21). The seventy years probably begin from the fourth year of Jehoiakim, when Jerusalem was first 
captured, and many captives, as well as the treasures of the temple, were carried away; they end with the 
first year of Cyrus, who, on taking Babylon, issued an edict for the restoration of the Jews (Ezra 1:1). Daniel's 
seventy prophetic weeks are based on the seventy years of the captivity (cf. Dan. 9:2, 24). " (Jamieson, R., 
Fausset, A.R., & Brown, D., "Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible," [1869], 
Oliphants/Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Revised Edition, 1961, Reprinted, 1966, p.626. Emphasis original)

"Judah's Captivity and Babylon's Punishment. 25:1-14. 1. Fourth year of Jehoiakim. 605 B.C. (cf. 36:1; 45:1; 
46:2). .... 11. Seventy years. A round number. If the beginning of Judah's submission to Babylon is 
reckoned at Nebuchadnezzar's first capture of Jerusalem (605 B.C.; cf. 1:3 ...), and the decree of Cyrus 
permitting the return at 538 B.C., the Exile lasted sixty-seven years." (Graybill, J.F., "Jeremiah," in Pfeiffer, 
C.F. & Harrison, E.F., eds., "The Wycliffe Bible Commentary," Oliphants: London, 1962, Reprinted, 1963, 

"[2Chr 36] 6. Against him . . Nebuchadnezzar (more correctly, Nebuchadrezzar, II Kgs 24:1, Hebrew text) 
came up. In the spring of 605 the Babylonians won a decisive victory over Necho at Carchemish (see on 
35:20; Jer 46:2). The Egyptians, as a result, were driven back within their own borders; and Palestine was left 
in the hands of Nebuchadrezzar (II Kgs 24:7). The conqueror proceeded to bind Jehoiakim in fetters, to carry 
him captive, though the threat seems to have been sufficient without taking him bodily to Babylon. 7. 
Nebuchadnezzar also carried off temple vessels, and also an initial captivity of select Jewish hostages, 
including Daniel (cf. Dan 1:1-3). This began the seventy years of Babylonian exile, 605 -536 B.C. (Jer 29:10)." 
(Payne, J.B., "II Chronicles," in Pfeiffer, C.F. & Harrison, E.F., eds., "The Wycliffe Bible Commentary," 
Oliphants: London, 1962, Reprinted, 1963, pp.419-420. Emphasis original)

"[2Chr 36] 8. The rest of the acts of Jehoiakim. After serving Nebuchadrezzar three years (until 602), he 
rebelled (II Kgs 24:1,2) but died before his full punishment could fall. 9. Jehoiachin was eight years old, 
rather, "eighteen years old," according to other MSS (cf. II Kgs 24:8; and he reigned three months and ten 
days, from December 598 to March 16, 597, according to the new Nebuchadrezzar texts (v. 7, note). 10. 
Nebuchadnezzar ... brought him to Babylon, 597 B.C., along with a second deportation, which included 
Ezekiel and 10,000 of the backbone of Jewish society (cf. II Kgs 24: 1016). And made Zedekiah his brother 
(uncle, II Kgs 24:17) king. 12. He humbled not himself before Jeremiah. Zedekiah first disregarded 
Jeremiah's messages (Jer 34:1-10), then inquired of the prophet (Jer 21), and finally pleaded with him far help 
(Jer 37), but never submitted to his requirements. Zedekiah was a weak man, pliable to the schemes of the 
vicious nobles that had been left to him (Jer 38:5). 13. He ... rebelled against ... Nebuchadnezzar, at the 
instigation of Hophra (588-567 B.C.) , Pharaoh of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty in Egypt (cf. Ezk 17:15; Jer 37:5). 
He made him swear. Zedekiah had been bound as a vassal to Nebuchadrezzar by oath; thus his 
faithlessness became his undoing (Ezk 17:13-19)." (Payne, J.B., "II Chronicles," in Pfeiffer, C.F. & Harrison, 
E.F., eds., "The Wycliffe Bible Commentary," Oliphants: London, 1962, Reprinted, 1963, p.420. Emphasis 

"[2Chr 36] 17. The Lord gave them all into the hand of the Chaldeans. See II Kgs 25:121 for the details of 
Jerusalem's fall and pillage and the third, great deportation, 586 B.C. (cf. II Chr 36:7,10, notes). 20. Them that 
had escaped from the sword. II Chronicles omits, as irrelevant to the final destiny of Judah, any account of 
the regathering under Gedaliah and the flight of the remnant to Egypt (II Kgs 25:22-27); of the small, fourth 
deportation of 582 B.C. (Jer 52:30) ; and of "the poorest of the land" that remained scattered in Palestine (II 
Kgs 25:12, ASV). Archaeology has demonstrated Judah's thorough depopulation at this time. He carried ... 
away to Babylon, as servants. After certain initial discouragements (Ps 137) and oppressive service (Isa 
14:2,3), some Jews gained favor and status (cf. II Kgs 25:27-30). The worldly ones grew indifferent and 
drifted away (cf. Ezk 33:31,32), but the godly gained in spiritual maturity (cf. Dan 1:8; Est 4: 14-16; Neh 1:4). 
21. To fulfill the word of the Lord ... land had enjoyed its sabbaths ... seventy years (RSV; cf. v. 7, note), 
presumably making up for a half-millennium of neglected sabbatic years (.... Lev 25:1-7; 26:34)." (Payne, J.B., 
"II Chronicles," in Pfeiffer, C.F. & Harrison, E.F., eds., "The Wycliffe Bible Commentary," Oliphants: 
London, 1962, Reprinted, 1963, p.420. Emphasis original)

"Author. Other than the statement that Daniel `wrote down the dream' (7:1), no claim of authorship is 
made in the book. Chs. 1- 6, expressed in the third person, may well have been written by someone else 
about Daniel. Chs. 7-12, largely in the first person, may have been accounts told by Daniel to another person 
or persons, or perhaps written down following the dreams and visions (see 7:1) and subsequently passed 
on. It sometimes is argued that Daniel himself wrote the book, with Matt. 24:15 offered in support, but Jesus 
says `spoken of by the prophet Daniel,' which does not in fact assert that he recorded those words in 
writing. According to the Talmud, a Jewish tradition placed some sort of editorial responsibility for Daniel 
on the men of the Great Synagogue,' sometime between Ezra (ca. 450) and Simeon the just (270). It is not 
unreasonable, then, to attribute the dreams and visions to Daniel, who passed them on (in written form or 
otherwise), and that they finally were put in canonical form in the fourth or third century." (La Sor, W.S.*, 
Hubbard, D.A.* & Bush, F.W.*, "Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old 
Testament," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1982, Reprinted, 1987, p.667. Emphasis original)

"In fact, the scenario that would be required for Daniel to be considered vaticinium ex eventu appears to 
face considerable problems. The four-year time span (168-164 B.C.) is far too short for a book of that time to 
be written, copied, circulated, and adopted as truth and then preserved as canon despite the apparent failure 
of its predictions. On this count, it seems that the presuppositional rejection of supernaturalism is largely 
responsible for the rejection of a sixth-century date for the book." (Hill, A.E.* & Walton, J.H.*, "A Survey of 
the Old Testament," [1991], Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Second Edition, 2000, p.454)

"The result of all of this is that we see no evidence to preclude dating the book to the sixth century B.C. 
Furthermore, the linguistic evidence (in regard to both the Hebrew and the Aramaic of Daniel) points toward 
a time earlier than the second century, as does the appearance of Daniel in the Septuagint (usually dated as 
early as the third century B.C.) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (from the first and second centuries B.C.). The fact 
that Daniel speaks in first-person narrative from chapter 7 to the end naturally suggests that he is the 
author, though the use of third person in the first part of the book may indicate that someone else laid out 
the framework and organized it." (Hill, A.E.* & Walton, J.H.*, "A Survey of the Old Testament," [1991], 
Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Second Edition, 2000, p.454)

"It is this immanent-future tension within the text itself which forces us to deal with the critical questions: 
`How much of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled by the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (the preterist view)? How 
many of these events will be fulfilled in the future (the futurist view)? The way one answers these questions 
is the source of the preterist-futurist debate. In another approach, some argue that this prophecy has both 
historical and future elements. Portions of the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled by the events of A.D. 70, while 
others remain to be fulfilled at the end of the age. Even double fulfillments may be in view here, with the 
events of A.D. 70 as shadows of a universal and final cataclysm at the end of the age. This is why C. E. B. 
Cranfield cautions that `neither an exclusively historical nor an exclusively eschatological interpretation is 
satisfactory ...We must allow for a double reference, for a mingling of historical and eschatological.' 
[Cranfield, C.E.B., "The Gospel According to St. Mark," Cambridge University Press: New York, 1983, 
pp.401-402] If Cranfield is correct, we should avoid reducing the Olivet Discourse to a prophecy of the 
events of A.D. 70 and a local judgment upon Israel, typical of preterism. We must also avoid treating the 
historical sections as though they are exclusively future, as is the case with many dispensational writers. In 
fact, the historical fulfillments may be types of future fulfillment. The difficulty in interpreting this text is to 
know which is which." (Riddlebarger, K., "A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times," Baker: 
Grand Rapids MI, 2003, pp.159-160) 

"deism, the view that true religion is natural religion. Some self-styled Christian deists accepted revelation 
although they argued that its content is essentially the same as natural religion. Most deists dismissed 
revealed religion as a fiction. God wants his creatures to be happy and has ordained virtue as the means to 
it. Since God's benevolence is disinterested, he will ensure that the knowledge needed for happiness is 
universally accessible. Salvation cannot, then, depend on special revelation. True religion is an expression 
of a universal human nature whose essence is reason and is the same in all times and places. Religious 
traditions such as Christianity and Islam originate in credulity, political tyranny, and priestcraft, which 
corrupt reason and overlay natural religion with impurities. Deism is largely a seventeenth- and 
eighteenthcentury phenomenon and was most prominent in England. Among the more important English 
deists were John Toland (1670-1722), Anthony Collins (1676-1729), Herbert of Churbury (1583-1648), 
Matthew Tindal (1657-1733), and Thomas Chubb (16791747). Continental deists included Voltaire and 
Reimarus. Thomas Paine (1737-1809) and Elihu Palmer (1764-1806) were prominent American deists. 
Orthodox writers in this period use 'deism' as a vague term of abuse. By the late eighteenth century, the term 
came to mean belief in an `absentee God' who creates the world, ordains its laws, and then leaves it to its 
own devices. " (Wainwright, W.J., "Deism," in Audi, R., ed., "The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy," 
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1995, Reprinted, 1996, p.188. Emphasis original) 

"deism, n. (from Latin deus god) a line of rationalistic religious thought that affirms that there is 
a GOD but denies that he should be understood in any mystical way. The antecedents of deism go 
back to ARISTOTLE'S First Mover, who moved `the first heaven' at the circumference of the universe 
but is otherwise unconcerned with human affairs. Deism proper arose with the RENAISSANCE and 
particularly the ENLIGHTENMENT. It is not a school in any sense, but rather typifies a general 
approach to religion: individualistic, non-mystical, non-institutional and often anti-clerical. To mention 
only two great philosophical figures, both LOCKE and KANT took a deist position. As an anti-
authoritarian way of thinking, deism in modern times is one of the results of the Protestant 
REFORMATION. Insofar as it implies a general spirit of tolerance (witness Frederick the Great's dictum 
that in his realm everyone could save his soul in his own fashion), deism remains in effect a living force 
today. Besides, toleration in religious matters tends to spread to other human concerns, particularly 
social and political." (Vesey, G. & Foulkes, P., "Collins Dictionary of Philosophy," HarperCollins: 
Glasgow, 1990, Reprinted, 1999, p.76. Emphasis original)

"theism, n. (from Greek theos god) is the view that there is such a thing as GOD. Depending on 
how many of them one takes there to be, we have monotheism (one god), polytheism (many gods) and 
appropriate compound terms for numbers in between. Theistic views may be based either on simple 
faith, or on attempts at accounting for what happens in the world. For the latter case, a whole range of 
arguments for the existence of god has been considered by philosophers over the ages. All of these 
proofs have been rejected by some philosophers, but the question remains controversial in that some 
others may accept them. Much here depends on what the god in question is taken to be like, and what 
his existence must account for: some regard god as the creator of the universe, as a giver of moral laws, 
as a source of universal benevolence, as an ultimate judge, or as several of these at once. Whether the 
proofs carry weight depends on whether one accepts the premisses. Where the only ground for 
admitting the existence of a god is unexamined belief, argument is of course ineffective either way. 
Some arguments have been conclusively refuted. Thus, the notion that there could be no morality 
without a god has been quite undermined by PLATO in the Euthyphro. That the thought of a 
powerful being who can put things to right offers comfort to many, is indubitable. VOLTAIRE, with 
tongue in cheek, says that if God did not exist one would have to invent him." (Vesey, G. & Foulkes, P., 
"Collins Dictionary of Philosophy," HarperCollins: Glasgow, 1990, Reprinted, 1999, p.283. Emphasis 

"deism Historically, a term referring to the doctrine of `natural religion' emerging in England and France in 
the late 17th and early 18th centuries, according to which while reason (particularly the argument to design) 
assures us that there is a God, additional revelation, dogma, or supernatural commerce with the deity are all 
excluded. Supplication and prayer in particular are fruitless: God may only be thought of as an 'absentee 
landlord'. Leading deists included Herbert, John Toland (1670-1722), whose Christianity not Mysterious 
(1696) was an influence on Berkeley, and Anthony Collins (1676-1729) as well as Shaftesbury and, 
arguably, Locke. The belief that remains is abstract to vanishing point, as witnessed in Diderot's remark that 
a deist is someone who has not lived long enough to become an atheist." (Blackburn, S., "The Oxford 
Dictionary of Philosophy," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1994, Reprinted, 1996, p.110. Emphasis 

"theism Belief in the existence of God. Theism is also a morbid condition brought on by excessive tea-
drinking, but this is a different sense of the word, or an instance of homonymy. See also deism, monotheism, 
polytheism, and different topics within the philosophy of religion." (Blackburn, S., "The Oxford Dictionary 
of Philosophy," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1994, Reprinted, 1996, p.375. Emphasis original)

"deism ... (Lat. deus god) n. belief in God as a perfect personal being; differs from THEISM by not 
accepting doctrines that require belief in revelation. Post-Reformation religious conflicts led many thinkers 
to attempt systems of NATURAL RELIGION which would be based on rational insight, independently of 
any revelation, and therefore universally acceptable. They were also driven in this direction by the 
difficulties arising from the attempts to reconcile reason and religion. The word deism, which can be traced 
back to French writings in the 1560s, was used for many of these systems. (So was the word theism: its 
modern sense is quite recent.) Herbert of Cherbury is commonly regarded as the first English thinker to have 
provided a formulation of deism, in the 1620s. He held that there are five basic tenets or common notions of 
natural religion: (1) there is one supreme God; (2) God ought to be worshipped; (3) worship consists in 
virtue and piety; (4) wrongdoing should be repented; (5) there are divine rewards and punishments in this 
life and the next. These tenets are rationally knowable and constitute the basis for a true universal religion. 
The main thrust of deism comes to expression in the titles of works like John Toland's (1670-1722) 
Christianity not mysterious: or a treatise showing that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason, nor 
above it: and that no Christian doctrine can be properly called a mystery 1696, and Mathew Tindal's (c. 1657-
1733) Christianity as old as the creation: or, the Gospel the republication of the religion of nature 1730. True 
religion is identified with Christianity-but a reinterpreted `rational' Christianity which has no place for any 
special revelation. A classical formulation of a deistic view is Rousseau's `The profession of faith of the 
Savoyard vicar' in Book 4 of his Emile 1762." (Mautner, T., ed., "The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy," 
[1996], Penguin: London, Revised, 2000, pp.126-127. Emphasis original)

"theism ... (Gr. theos god) n. the belief that there is one God, a personal being with every perfection 
(perfect power, perfect knowledge, perfect goodness, perfect justice, etc.); crcreator of the world, manifested 
in the world, interacting with the world, but nevertheless existing entirely separately from the world; a being 
that is the one and only proper object of worship and obedience. Theism is common to Judaism, Christianity 
and Islam. Theism can be contrasted with a variety of views: (1) the view that there is one God is rejected by 
polytheism, which claims that there are many gods; in contrast, traditional Western religions are also said to 
be monotheistic; (2) the view that God is a personal being is rejected as anthropomorphic in some 
philosophical systems, which rather conceive of God as an absolute, nonpersonal being; (3) the view that 
God is distinct from the world is rejected by pantheism, which identifies God and the world; (4) the view that 
God interacts with the world is rejected by deism, which ascribes to God a decisive role in originating the 
world, but none in keeping the world going; (5) the denial of the existence of any divine being is called 
atheism; (6) the suspension of judgement on the question whether theism is true is called agnosticism. 
Many of the teleological, cosmological, ontological, moral, etc. arguments for the existence of God are 
intended to establish theism." (Mautner, T., "The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy," [1996], Penguin: 
London, Revised, 2000, p.561)

"The last of my public debates, a symposium at New York University, occurred in May 2004. The other 
participants were the Israeli scientist Gerald Schroeder, author of best sellers on science and religion, 
notably The Science of God, and the Scottish philosopher John Haldane, whose Theism and Atheism 
was a debate on God's existence with my friend Jack Smart. To the surprise of all concerned, I announced at 
the start that I now accepted the existence of a God. What might have been an intense exchange of 
opposing views ended up as a joint exploration of the developments in modern science that seemed to point 
to a higher Intelligence. In the video of the symposium, the announcer suggested that of all the great 
discoveries of modern science, the greatest was God. In this symposium, when asked if recent work on the 
origin of life pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence, I said: `Yes, I now think it does ... almost 
entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, 
by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that 
intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It's 
the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work 
together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the 
enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.' 
This statement represented a major change of course for me, but it was nevertheless consistent with the 
principle I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life-of following the argument no matter 
where it leads." (Flew, A.G.N., "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His 
Mind," HarperCollins: New York NY, 2007, pp.74-75)

"Economists use probability theory to make forecasts about consumer spending. Actuaries use it to 
calculate insurance premiums. Last month, Richard Swinburne, a professor of philosophy at Oxford 
University, put it to work toward less mundane ends: he invoked it to defend the belief that Jesus was 
resurrected from the dead. `For someone dead for 36 hours to come to life again is, according to the laws of 
nature, extremely improbable,' Mr. Swinburne told an audience of more than 100 philosophers who had 
convened at Yale University in April for a conference on ethics and belief. `But if there is a God of the 
traditional kind, natural laws only operate because he makes them operate.' Mr. Swinburne, a commanding 
figure with snow-white hair and piercing blue eyes, proceeded to weigh evidence for and against the 
Resurrection, assigning values to factors like the probability that there is a God, the nature of Jesus' 
behavior during his lifetime and the quality of witness testimony after his death. Then, while his audience 
followed along on printed lecture notes, he plugged his numbers into a dense thicket of letters and symbols 
- using a probability formula known as Bayes's theorem and did the math. `Given e and k, h is true if and 
only if c is true,' he said. `The probability of h given e and k is .97' In plain English, this means that, by Mr. 
Swinburne's calculations, the probability of the Resurrection comes out to be a whopping 97 percent." 
(Eakin, E., "So God's Really in the Details?," The New York Times, May 11, 2002)

* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists. However, lack of
an asterisk does not necessarily mean that an author is an evolutionist.


Copyright © 2008-2010, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. These my quotes may be used
for non-commercial purposes only and may not be used in a book, ebook, CD, DVD, or any other
medium except the Internet, without my written permission. If used on the Internet, a link back
to this page would be appreciated.
Created: 1 November, 2008. Updated: 4 April, 2010.