How do you know this because no event is prophesied to occur after 49 years?

The date 458 BC April 8th for Ezra 7:9 I take from Richard Parker and Waldo Dubberstein's publication "Babylonian Chronology - 626 BC - AD 75", 2nd edition, the standard work for the period. The reign start of Artaxerxes I, and reign end of Darius II (404 BC) I take from there. The evidence Jonathan was High Priest in about 411 BC (taken from Elephantine Papyrus B21), yet Jaddua was High Priest before the death of Darius II I take from Nehemiah 12:22. Nehemiah was completed between these two dates.

You have not answered my question - what part of the text in Dan 9:24-27 says this will occur?

v24 refers to the death and resurrection of our Lord. 490 years before that is Ezra 7:9 in 458 BC. 49 years later something significant must be found worthy to merit dividing the 483 years into two parts, and related to the "building of the walls ... in troublous times", a reference to the events in the book of Nehemiah.

That is the problem - the rebuilding of the wall occurs following the seven weeks AND sixty two weeks. What allows you to arbitrarily place those events after only the seven weeks.

That is your interpretation. In my view the mention of the walls is drawing attention to the scripture which mentions it (Nehemiah) and hinting at the reason for the division of the period into two. But all the events in Nehemiah are before 410-408 BC. The only thing which happened around 410-408 BC was the writing of the book of Nehemiah. It is understanding the prophecy in retrospect from what actually happened. Basically the evidence exists for the interpretation, if there was no evidence no one would take it as the fulfillment.

That is simply data selected to make the things fit. There is no warrant for such ideas in the text of Dan 9:24-27 and you have not proffered any at all from Dan 9.

Again, I am suggesting that there is no warrant for attempting to associate the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem 49 years after Ezra's return to Jerusalem as you claim.

I am not. Ezra left Babylon to return on 8th April 458 BC Julian (Ezra 7:9). The wall was rebuilt 445 BC, just 13 years later. I am saying Daniel 9 is ref to the time when the Scripture (book of Nehemiah) was written which speaks of the building of the wall in troublous times. And Nehemiah 12:22 provides support together with the year of Darius II's death (404 BC). One of the Elephantine letters, B19, tells Johanan (Nehemiah 12:22) was High Priest in 413 BC. The last High Priest named in Neh 12:22 is Jaddua. Inference: Nehemiah was written in window 413-404 BC. 49 after 458 is 409.

So the order of events from 413 to 404 I believe must be: 413 Johanan was High Priest; Johanan dies and Jaddua becomes HP; Nehemiah is written (or maybe the finishing touches are put to Nehemiah); Darius II dies 404. This seems the best explanation of Nehemiah 12:22.

That is even worse - the book of Nehemiah was supposed to be the partial fulfilment of Dan 9? That IS imaginative.

Why do you think so?

Very simple - Dan 9:24-27 is a prophecy about just two things: The 1st advent of messiah (Jesus Christ) and the rebuilding and final destruction of Jerusalem. It says NOTHING about the writing of a book.

So, it would be good if you would put up an answer, giving your explanation, with supporting evidence, of the significance of the first 49 years, saying when the 490 years began, why the 483 is divided into two periods of 49 years and 434 years. I would appreciate very close attention to the question in your answer.

Also, notice that Ray Grant is saying the 434 years are the "Silent Years" i.e. the years of Prophetic Silence, which is essentially what it means to have the last book of the OT, Nehemiah, completed immediately prior to the beginning of those 434 years, i.e. at the end of the 49 years. Your interpretation, I think, is wrong. I doubt you have any explanation for the first 49 years, or for the division of the 483 years into two periods.

There are many things we do not understand; but is a mistake to assume a bad/wrong explanation (because it appears to fit) is the right explanation when none other is available.

That sounds reasonable, and logically it is true. It drives me to add to my answer, because I believe in this case it is not correct. It would very strange for the Holy Spirit to make any prophecy for which there is no explanation

That is equally untrue - look at the surprise and mystery expressed by Daniel when he said (Dan 8:27) "It was beyond understanding". Perhaps the time is not yet appropriate for the revelation of this fact. Or perhaps it needs no explanation.

I agree the inspired writers did not always fully undersand what they wrote. But the NIV translation is in a minority for Dan 8:27. Most common is not "it was beyond understanding" but rather "but none understood it". Much of Dan 8's vision can be understood in hindsight, same as Dan 9:24-27.

While I could never agree with your explanation of the clay, referred to in Daniel's 2nd Chapter, I can certainly go along with this answer. Well done, upvoted + 1.

Also, your penultimate paragraph, as to the start and end of the 490 years is spot on.

@OldeEnglish - On my score card you thus get 50% for the two questions. But even tho' you don't agree with what I said about the clay, I think you must get some bonus marks for remembering my answer. So have another 10%! ;)