User:Nossond

concerning "Prophecy of 70 Weeks": You have been painstakingly adding more material, which is good; however, you are running the risk of having it all swiftly deleted unless you provide references for everything you have added and referenced in the proper Wikipedia way. You may be 100 percent correct in what you have been adding, BUT.... you MUST include references for it all. It may seem odd, but truth is not as important as having sources on Wikipedia. If you need to, take the time to see how others have sourced the material that has already been added.

A question: we are told that there are 70 weeks for the people. then we are given 7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week (which added up to 70 weeks) and yet you argue that the 7 weeks is unrelated to the 62 weeks and unrelated to the 1 week and apparently unrelated to the 70 weeks. When 7 + 62 + 1 = 70 why think they are are all unrelated? Allenroyboy (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC) _____________________________________

I'm not sure about the way to respond on this, so I just clicked on edit. Perhaps there is another way.

In any case, I did now reference every single point I made, except for one (which there are sources for similar ideas, but I can't find it exactly as I stated). I included all sources within the aticle, one because they are very short and flow with the article, two because talmudic works are not easily referenceable, and three because this is the talmudic method (which does not use footnotes). Feel free to give me pointers on doing it better.

I also want to make a point that there are tons of unreferenced statements both in this particular aticle and in other articles, so I don't see why you should pick on my statements (especially now that I have referenced them).

In answer to the question you posed, you need to reread my posting. Firstly, there is no 70th week mentioned in the verse that splits the weeks into 7 and 62. You are mistaken when you say that we are given 7, 62, and 1. Only 7 and 62 are mentioned. Rashi explains that the missing week is split in half between 7 and 62, so isntead of saying 7 plus whatever and 62 plus whatever, it simply says 7 and 62.

Moreover, I never said that 7 and 62 are unrelated. I said that they are not one composit number. Say you had a party coming up in 69 weeks. Would you say that you have a party comming up in 7 weeks and 62 weeks. No, you would say 69 weeks. The KJV and many others treat the two in this unusual way, as one composite number. By doing so the verse has one result after that amount of time. Rashi, on the other hand, explains how each one is treeated seperately. So first we are told about seventy sevens. Then the 70 sevens are split into two, with seperate treatment for each one. (I edited my posting on this matter. I hope that I made it more clear.) Nossond (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)