Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - Maritime 2nd Advent Christian Believers OnLine Forums Consisting Mainly of Both Members & Friends of the SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) Church

An explanation by William H. Shea:

The return of the Jews under Ezra is described in chapters 7 and 8 but their rebuilding of the city is described in chapter 4. Why are things out of order like this?
It should be pointed out here that there is more than one way to organize a book, biblical or otherwise, and the author does not always have to subscribe to the strictly chronological approach. He might also follow a topical approach. And that is what has happened here. There is a parenthesis here between Ezra 4:5 and 4:24-5:1. The parenthesis continues its own recital along chronological lines but the topic or subtopic being opposition to the Jews. That opposition is cited first for the reign of Cyrus in Ezra 4:1-5, then for the reign of Ahasuerus (or Xerxes) Ezra 4:6, then for the reign of Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:7-23. Then with Ezra 4:24 the narrative returns to the time of Darius, between the times of Cyrus and Ahasuerus.
The topic treated in this subsection (Ezra 4) is opposition to the Jews. The opposition is in the first case about building the temple (time of Cyrus), then a more general opposition (time of Xerxes), and finally an opposition about building the city of Jerusalem (time of Artaxerxes). Fensham has given a nice evaluation of this problem in his statement that,

In spite of this [the chronological order of Persian kings in chapter 4], Rudolph presumes that the Chronicler had no idea of the historical sequence of the Persian kings and mentioned typical names which are accidentally correct chronologically. Rudolph arrives at this conclusion because of the sudden switch to Darius in 4:24. . . . Thus it is understandable that modern scholars, reasoning from their own logic, should regard the historical reliability of this chapter with suspicion. But there is another kind of perfectly legitimate logic to the reasoning of the author of this chapter: he is referring in this chapter in chronological order to the hindrances placed in the way of Jews to rebuild the temple and the wall of Jerusalem. When he discussed the problems of the building of the temple in 4:1-5, it reminded him of later similar troubles with the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem, and so 4:6-23 has been inserted, almost parenthetically, before the argument of the building of the temple has again been taken up in 4:24ff. (already noted by C. F. Keil in the last century).[8]

Thus there is a perfectly good explanation as to why the decree and the return are described in chapters 7 and 8 but the rebuilding undertaken by the very same people who returned in these chapters is described in chapter 4. There is no conflict. The chapter arrangement merely reflects the author's decision to treat his materials in a topical rather than in a strictly chronological manner.

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Whendid70WksofDan9begin.htm

Posted By: Colin

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/10/06 03:59 PM

Aaah, David, we're all agreed that Ezra 7 is dated to 457BC. It'd be disturbing if our earliest literature didn't hold this position unanimously!!...

What about Ezra 4 and its dating???...

Posted By: the1888message

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/10/06 05:15 PM

Quote:

Aaah, David, we're all agreed that Ezra 7 is dated to 457BC. It'd be disturbing if our earliest literature didn't hold this position unanimously!!...

What about Ezra 4 and its dating???...

sorry I left this out when I copied it frfom my word doc.

Chapter 4 of is dated as being between 535-522 BC. This is well before chapter 7 by at least 65 years.

Has anyone noticed the word "transgression from verse 24?

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”

This word actually comes from another word, which means, “ apostatize”.
What does the word apostatize mean? The 1919 Webster’s has it this way “to renounce ones faith”
So the children of God renounced their faith, what was handed down from their fathers from generation to generation? They renounced that which God had given them; they had turned unto strange gods and strange doctrines.
God gave them an allotted amount of time to what?

Posted By: Colin

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/10/06 07:47 PM

Yes, clearly Israel had to fulfil its promised purpose - accomplish God's plan for by receiving the Messiah, and the 70 weeks was that period for holding rightly to their faith and it reaches up to Stephen's martyrdom. The dating of Ezra 4 as you're arguing for is suspect simply because effective permission to build Jerusalem is necessary before the wall and temple of Jerusalem can fully be built:
Ezra 4 cannot pre-date Ezra 7 for this obvious, practical reason.

Impressive editions of Bibles are not authorities for the interpreted dates they insert, unless they interpret reliably. Well?

Posted By: asygo

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/10/06 10:18 PM

Quote:

Take, for example, 538 B.C. Applying the day-year principle to the 69 weeks (483 years) would bring "the Messiah the Prince," Jesus, to 55 B.C., an impossible date for Jesus.

The same with another common date, 520 B.C. That starting date would bring Jesus to about 37 B.C., an impossible conclusion.

Finally, the only other common date is 444 B.C., which, if used, would place the beginning of Jesus' ministry about A.D. 39 or 40 and His death sometime in the early A.D. 40s. And though that's much closer than the other two options, New Testament scholars know that those dates don't work for Jesus."

This line of reasoning assumes that the prophecy revolves around Jesus of Nazareth. Is there a way to independently show that the prophecy starts at 457? So, rather than Jesus proving the prophecy, it goes in the other direction?

Posted By: the1888message

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 12:14 AM

If chapter 4 is truly dated after chapter 7, then the King changed his decree to rebuild the city. For in chapter 4 verse 21 in the kings reply to the “father’s”, he states;
“Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me.”
The “fathers” had sent the king a letter in which the king was told that they were in the process of rebuilding the city.

We know that chapter 7 is dated in 457 B C, with the decree from the king to rebuild the city to Ezra. So here we have the decree to rebuild some years after the “fathers” had asked to rebuild and some people apparently had begun to rebuild the city without the decree to do so.

If chapter 4 comes some time after chapter 7 and it is an order from the king to stop work on the city, then is the date 457 correct? If so, and chapter 4 is a later date than chapter 7(457) then what is the date they started to rebuild the city? And will it still fit with the timeline of Christ?

I do not believe it so. In chapter 4 there is no decree from the king to rebuild the city, only an order to stop the unauthorized building of the city. Some thirteen or so years later Nehemiah also went by order of the king to the city although there is no decree to him to rebuild the city, for it was already being rebuilt, with the Temple of God being built first.

Peace and Grace
David

Posted By: the1888message

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 12:16 AM

There is only one way that I know how to do this, and this is by showing that a decree went out and that also there was a rebuilding just after that date. Prior to the date of 457 did anyone act upon the decrees to rebuild the city?

Peace and Grace
David

Posted By: asygo

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 12:53 AM

Quote:

showing that a decree went out and that also there was a rebuilding just after that date

Bro David,

I've thought of that, but was not satisfied. The text starts the countdown "from the going forth of the commandment." This tells me that the decree starts the clock, regardless of any actual rebuilding taking place.

What if it took the Jews 2 years to start rebuilding in earnest? Does that push the start by 2 years? Or do we start counting from the decree, as long as some rebuilding happened after the decree?

What I'm looking for is something very concrete, to remove the "fudge factor" in the calculations. This prophecy impacts our understanding of the start of the Investigative Judgment, so I would like it to be on very solid footing. So far, I haven't yet found footing solid enough for me to take to hardened skeptics.

Posted By: asygo

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 01:05 AM

Quote:

the 70 weeks is to be "cut off" from the 2,300 days.

How do we know where to cut it off? The beginning, middle, or end? IOW, does the 70 weeks start the 2300 days, end it, or is it "floating around" inside?

Posted By: asygo

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 01:07 AM

Another question. What is significant about the "7 weeks" that is mentioned in Dan 9:25?

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 01:54 AM

Quote:

Is there a way to independently show that the prophecy starts at 457?

It is historically impossible to prove that 457 B.C. is the year for Ezra's trip.

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 02:11 AM

Quote:

How do we know where to cut it off? The beginning, middle, or end? IOW, does the 70 weeks start the 2300 days, end it, or is it "floating around" inside?

Andrews uses a good argument to explain this. He says that if the beginning of the seventy weeks did not provide the initial point for the 2300 days, then 1) there is no possible way to know when the 2300 days began, and 2) Gabriel failed in his mission to explain the vision

Posted By: Daryl

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 02:29 AM

Quote:

It is historically impossible to prove that 457 B.C. is the year for Ezra's trip.

But is it biblically impossible to prove that 457 B.C. is the year for Ezra's trip?

Posted By: Daryl

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 02:58 AM

Quote:

One source states it as so can be found in

Found in what?

Posted By: the1888message

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 06:19 AM

Sorry about that I had two lines of thoughts going on, I left one back at the station.

To continue the first thought “One source states it as so can be found in” Prideaux, the book, Connec., Vol 1Paage 322, you will find that it is also supports the beginning date of 457 as the decree and that Ezra went to begin the restoration of the city.
Josephus also supports the same date and the building of the city.
More over there is verse 28 of chapter 7 in Ezra where he plainly states that he went forth to go to the city.

Posted By: asygo

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 07:37 AM

Quote:

if the beginning of the seventy weeks did not provide the initial point for the 2300 days, then 1) there is no possible way to know when the 2300 days began, and 2) Gabriel failed in his mission to explain the vision

Sis Rosangela,

Why can't it be at the end? That would make the end of the 70 weeks coincide with the cleansing of the sanctuary. Then you count back from that to figure out the start of the 2300 days.

BTW, who's Andrews and what's the book's title?

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 04:48 PM

1888 Message, I’m as interested in the historical establishment of 457 as you. However, the date cannot be established historically, at least at present.

The Bible states: “And he [Ezra] came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king [Artaxerxes]” (Ezra 7:8).

The problem is, when was the 7th year of Artaxerxes? There is no doubt that Ezra traveled in 458 B.C. or in 457 B.C., but the choice of either of these years is based on several assumptions, owing to a lack of documentation as to the Xerxes-Artaxerxes transition.

Besides, nobody knows which dating system Ezra was using – the Egyptian, the Babylonian/Persian, the Jewish spring-to-spring dating, or the Jewish fall-to-fall dating? The only system that would yield 457 B.C. as the year for Ezra’s trip is the Jewish fall-to-fall dating.

We know that Xerxes died in 465 B.C. In the fall-to-fall system we would have:
Fall 465 – fall 464
Fall 464 – fall 463
Fall 463 – fall 462
Fall 462 – fall 461
Fall 461 – fall 460
Fall 460 – fall 459
Fall 459 – fall 458
Fall 458 – fall 457

For Ezra to have traveled in the 7th year of Artaxerxes, Artaxerxes must have ascended to the throne after the fall of 465. Thus, from this point in 465 until the fall of 464 we would have his accession year. From the fall of 464 to the fall of 463 his first year of reign, and so on; his seventh year would have been, then, from the fall of 458 to the fall of 457.

One papyrus gives the death of Xerxes in August, and thus before the fall of 465. But the historian Manetho (3d century B.C.) includes Artabanus with a seven-month reign between Xerxes and Artaxerxes. Sigfried H. Horn, in his book The Chronology of Ezra Seven, says, in frustration:

“There are no known documents from any part of the Persian empire recognizing a reign of Artabanus. Unfortunately this negative evidence is weak, because there are no known contemporary records dated in either the last year of Xerxes or the accession year of Artaxerxes, except the Aramaic papyrus AP 6. It is among the ironies of history that, although many thousands of documents of the Persian empire period survive, the year 465/4 is one of the poorest years represented” (pp. 106, 107).

The conclusion is that both the year 458 and the year 457 are based on assumptions, for a lack of historical information.

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 05:24 PM

Arnold,

Quote:

Why can't it be at the end? That would make the end of the 70 weeks coincide with the cleansing of the sanctuary. Then you count back from that to figure out the start of the 2300 days.

The beginning point of the 70 weeks is the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem. This can only be either in the 5th century B.C. or in the 20th century A.D.
Beginning in the 5th century B.C., the 70 weeks (490 years) would take us to the first century A.D.; 2300 years back would take us to the 23d century B.C. - too early for the vision of the 2300 days, which begins at the time of the ram, Media-Persia (Dan. 8:3, 20) – 6th to 4th century B.C.
Beginning with the 20th century A.D. (the second time Jerusalem was rebuilt), 70 weeks (490 years) would take us to the 25th century A.D. – we would still have four centuries until the coming of the Messiah and the cleansing of the sanctuary.

Quote:

BTW, who's Andrews and what's the book's title?

John Nevins Andrews, one of our pioneers (1829-1883), and 3d GC president. The arguments I presented were taken from an article he wrote, “Under the Necessity of Choosing”, RH, November 8, 1853.

Posted By: asygo

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 10:49 PM

Sis Rosangela,

Quote:

The beginning point of the 70 weeks is the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem. This can only be either in the 5th century B.C. or in the 20th century A.D.

I agree. But for completeness, I would expand that to include the 539 BC decree.

Quote:

Beginning in the 5th century B.C., the 70 weeks (490 years) would take us to the first century A.D.; 2300 years back would take us to the 23d century B.C. - too early for the vision of the 2300 days, which begins at the time of the ram, Media-Persia (Dan. 8:3, 20) ; 6th to 4th century B.C.

How do we know that Dan 8:14 begins with the ram? I don't know of any argument for this, except the fact that the vision of Daniel 8 starts with the ram.

Quote:

Beginning with the 20th century A.D. (the second time Jerusalem was rebuilt), 70 weeks (490 years) would take us to the 25th century A.D. ; we would still have four centuries until the coming of the Messiah and the cleansing of the sanctuary.

What argument can we make against this possibility? There are people still waiting for the Messiah, aren't there?

Quote:

John Nevins Andrews... "Under the Necessity of Choosing", RH, November 8, 1853.

Thanks. I'll try to find that.

Posted By: the1888message

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/12/06 12:41 AM

Quote from Rosangela “Beginning with the 20th century A.D. (the second time Jerusalem was rebuilt), 70 weeks (490 years) would take us to the 25th century A.D. ; we would still have four centuries until the coming of the Messiah and the cleansing of the sanctuary.”

Question by asygo “What argument can we make against this possibility? There are people still waiting for the Messiah, aren't there?”

Remark

The problem I see here is that the rest of the prophecy cannot be fulfilled with the date of the 20th century as the beginning time. For Christ has died for our sins already. Is He do come back and do it all over again? Are the Jews yet again to deny Christ as they have already done?

If the possibility exists that it is the 20th century for the fulfillment of this prophecy then the children of Israel have had more than 70 weeks / 490 years to repent from their sins from the point of their captivity into Babylon, which the Bible has laid out for us in very simple terms. The captivity that the children of Israel went into because they had turned from God is told about in the Bible and it is this captivity in, which they were to come out of as foretold in the scriptures.

Also where was the decree to restore the city given in the 20th century?

Peace and Grace
David

Posted By: the1888message

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/12/06 12:50 AM

Quote "The beginning point of the 70 weeks is the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem. This can only be either in the 5th century B.C. or in the 20th century A.D."

Question by asygo “I agree. But for completeness, I would expand that to include the 539 BC decree.”

Remark

How could the date 539 BC be included into the 70-week prophecy? While, yes some of the “father’s” went to rebuild the city (Ezra 4) and they went by a decree from prior to their rebuilding the city we also know that the king that was in power at the time stopped them in their rebuilding efforts. Only later to allow Ezra to go with not only a decree but also any and all funds and supplies that he requested.
Here again, this or any other date outside of the 457 BC date will, dismantle the rest of the 70-week prophecy. It appears to me that Christ is the center focus of this part of the prophecy. We know when He lived and when He died. So if these dates do not coincide with His ministry and death then the date being used must be in error.

Peace and Grace
David

Posted By: the1888message

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/12/06 01:44 AM

Here are a few of Bible the expositors that have written about the 9th Chapter of Daniel concerning the date, length and ending etc.

Sargls d’Aberge 7th century, Daniel 9 the 70 weeks he wrote that the 69 weeks was to Christ.

If it is to the time of Christ when would that have been,

Nikolaus Selnecker 1579, 70 weeks is the year of Artax.

Georg Nigrinus 1570, 70 weeks where from 457 BC-34 AD

John Tillnghast 1655, ended in 34 AD

Thomas Beverly 1684, years to Christ

Sir Isaac Newton 1727, 457 BC 34 AD

Berlenberg Bible 1743, Years to Christ

Johann Al. Bengel 1740, Years to Christ

Athansius 373 AD, to the Cross

J Ddavenportt 1653, Years to the cross

Mason Arch D.D. 1820, William Cuningham 1813, The Christian Observer 1810, C. C. the Jewish Expositor 1820, John Fry 1822, Edward Cooper 1825, Ph. Homan (the M. Watch) 1829, Ed N. Hoare 1830, Louis Gaussen 1839, Matthew Habershon 1834, William Miller 1836, (and the list goes on) wrote and taught that the beginning for the 70-week time prophecy began in 457 BC.

Also here is a list of those who wrote and said that was from the decree from Arta. To Ezra; J.A.B. Christian observer, 1810, Mason Arch D.D. 1820, C. C. the Jewish Expositor 1820, Jno. A. Brown 1823, Alphonse Nicole M.F 1823, Ph. Homan (the M. Watch) 1829, Watchman of the Night 1833, William Miller 1836.

Where did they get their information from to form the dates and conclusions that they held?

You may be correct that it is impossible to set the date at 457 BC. That is if we use the modern history books and such. If we still had the old history books I have no doubt that things would read somewhat different than they do today. Even the history books that I used some 30 plus years back are not the same as those of today, for the history books of today are changing things that were truths back then. Today’s learned people now count them as error and this is shown from the “new” history books.

Is not the Bible a history book that has been proven to be accurate?

2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

Peace and Grace
David

Posted By: Kevin H

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/12/06 03:32 AM

While there are other dates suggested, a large number of scholars from all schools, liberal, conservative, moderate, higher criticism, lower criticisism, minimalists and maxamalists, modernists, fundamentalist and moderates, preterists, historisists, and futurists, have a large support for the decree of Ezra 7 to be in 457 BC, and some of these even date it to the day of Atonement 457 BC.

One excellent scholar who had held other dates but then settled on 457 BC is Frank Moore Cross.

There is much more modern support for dating Ezra 7 to 457 BC than I am sensing from the posts on this thread. Let's not be paronoid thinking that we hold this view and everyone else is against us. I'm sorry but we have a lot of support and agreement on this topic.

We have long given up Miller's reason for starting with 457 BC as not mesuring up to further Biblical knowlege, but it appears that he did end up with the correct date.

Another piece of evidence is how the book of John starts Jesus' ministry with John the Babtist (who does not baptize Jesus in the book of John) saying "Behold the lamb of God who scapegoats the sins of the world" (more commonly translated "...who taketh away the sins of the world") having Jesus' ministry inagurated on the day of atonment with a death 3 and a half years latter. John seems to have tied Jesus' ministry to Daniel 9.

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/12/06 04:23 AM

Kevin,

Some uncertainties remain for lack of detailed information on the transition period from Xerxes to Artaxerxes, which force any biblical scholar to make some reasonable assumptions only. It seems of little profit to enlist the testimony of writers in favor of 458 or 457, because many of them have not delved into this subject and are only quoting their peers or making biased statements. The problem is simple: lack of documentation - and what is not documented must be assumed. However, it is important to note that there isn't any document which could invalidate our position. Besides, the defense of the year 457 can be assisted by the analysis of the chronological data given by Ezra and by astronomically determining the day of the week. For example, the Bible informs us that they left Babylon on Nisan 1. In 458 B.C. Nisan 1 corresponds to April 7/8 sunset to sunset, which is Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. Ezra wouldn't have left Babylon on a Sabbath day. But such a problem with the Sabbath does not exist if the year is 457 B.C.
Further details about the complexity of the subject can be read in Juarez Oliveira's book.

http://www.setentasemanas.com/

In "Downloads" go to "Click to expand the FTP window here". Then right-click the link "BOOK Juarez1. pdf" and select "Save Target As...".

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/12/06 04:27 AM

Quote:

How do we know that Dan 8:14 begins with the ram? I don't know of any argument for this, except the fact that the vision of Daniel 8 starts with the ram.

The angel asks: “How long will the vision be” (v. 13)? And the other angel replies: "For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed."
Since the vision starts with the ram, this is a strong indication that the 2300 days start in the period of the ram.

Posted By: Kevin H

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/12/06 07:09 AM

Actually there are two independent documents, the Elephantine Papari from Egypt and the Samarian Papari both document the decree and place it with what we would consider the fall of 457 BC. Dr. Cross is one who has studied into it deeply, as well as with in our own church Lynn Harper Wood and Dr. Thiele.

Posted By: the1888message

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/13/06 06:49 AM

Quote:

Actually there are two independent documents, the Elephantine Papari from Egypt and the Samarian Papari both document the decree and place it with what we would consider the fall of 457 BC. Dr. Cross is one who has studied into it deeply, as well as with in our own church Lynn Harper Wood and Dr. Thiele.

There is also Cladius Ptolemy also set the date as historical fact by useing the lunar cycle. The article is called the "cannon of Ptolemy".

Peace and Grace
David

Posted By: asygo

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/13/06 11:42 PM

Quote:

"How long will the vision be" (v. 13)?...
Since the vision starts with the ram, this is a strong indication that the 2300 days start in the period of the ram.

Clifford Goldstein makes the argument (in the quarterly and in his book 1844 Made Simple) that there are two words used for vision: hazon and mareh. Hazon is used when referring to the whole vision of Daniel 8, while mareh is used when referring only to the 2300 days. He uses this argument to link the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 to the 2300 days of Daniel 8.

I think the argument is reasonable. But a side effect of it is that there is somewhat of a separation made between the 2300 days and the rest of the vision, weakening the link between the ram and the start of the 70 weeks.

Do you accept this argument?

Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks

Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/06/06 09:53 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/06/06 09:56 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/06/06 10:02 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/07/06 05:00 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/07/06 05:09 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/08/06 06:18 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/08/06 07:03 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/08/06 07:26 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/09/06 05:57 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/09/06 08:48 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/09/06 09:48 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/10/06 06:09 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/10/06 03:59 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/10/06 05:15 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/10/06 07:47 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/10/06 10:18 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 12:14 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 12:16 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 12:53 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 01:05 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 01:07 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 01:54 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 02:11 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 02:29 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 02:54 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 02:58 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 06:19 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 07:37 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 04:48 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 05:24 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/11/06 10:49 PM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/12/06 12:41 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/12/06 12:50 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/12/06 01:44 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/12/06 03:32 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/12/06 04:23 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/12/06 04:27 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/12/06 07:09 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/13/06 06:49 AM

Re: Lesson Study #7 - 70 Weeks - 08/13/06 11:42 PM