Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus never said exactly what the Abomination was...

By referencing Daniel, either Jesus or the author directed the reader to Dan 9.26-27, where the AoD is describing as coming "on the wing of abominations to desolate." And it was a description, explicitly, of destroying "the city and the sanctuary," referring to Jerusalem and its temple.

Jesus described armies coming to surround Jerusalem, as eagles gather to a corpse. Eagles were unclean food for the Jewish People under the Law. And the Romans worshiped the eagles on their military standards. The presence of Roman troops in the holy territory surrounding Jerusalem was an "abomination."

The "people of the ruler to come" likely refers, then, to the Roman Armies, coming as pagans invading the holy territory of Israel. They took control of Israel while she was still under the Law, and later determined to put down a Jewish rebellion, destroying their temple and defeating their capital city.

Daniel 9 and 12 are talking about two different abominations. Daniel 9 was the destruction of Jerusalem when it would be surrounded by armies in the middle third of Luke 21, right after: "but before all this.

Yes.

The Daniel 12 one, (1290 Days), is the one that we are concerned about right now. Because that's the one with the timing of when the multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake. (Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever)

I don't think so. My personal belief is that Dan 12 is a summary of the book as a whole, highlighting two major events mentioned in the book. First, Daniel mentions the 3.5 years which do, in fact, immediately precede the end of the age, and the resurrection of the saints (Dan 7 and 12).

Second, Daniel mentions the 1290 days of Antiochus' reign, which is, as you say, an AoD. But it is not, in my view, the same as the 3.5 years of Antichristian rule.

Daniel 12 is the Olivet of Mathew 24 and Mark 13 at the end of the world.

I don't think so. The Olivet Discourse refers largely to Dan 9. However, it takes place with the backdrop of the Last Days, mentioned in Dan 9 and Dan 12.7. I agree at least in part with your notion that Dan 12 contains Last Days information. But I would exclude from this the 1290 day rule of Antiochus 4 in Dan 12.11.

(Luke moved the end time Abomination to his Chapter 17)

Luke did include some of the AoD information in ch. 17. But the reason for the move was more likely an effort at focusing on the Jewish misunderstanding of how the Kingdom of God is coming. In ch. 17, Jesus essentially made his 2nd Coming something that in preliminary form appears in the historic judgment in 70 AD. It signaled the beginning of the endtimes for the Jewish People, who then would go through an entire age of "punishment" before the nation is finally saved.

Luke 17.30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything."

This event actually took place 66-70 AD. But Jesus made it sound as if he was coming in judgment on that day. In a sense, he was, though. But it was not his eschatological judgment. It was just a coming in preliminary judgment.

The reason to zero in on the first century "wing of abominations" is that it aids us in an understanding of our end time "holy place" where our end time Abomination is standing. (Where it ought not to be)

Even though it doesn't exactly read "holy place", the place, the earth, where Moses stood was holy, so he was told to take off his sandals.

“Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” - Exodus 3:5
​

Same thing in Joshua. Take off your sandals.

"The commander of the LORD’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so. - Joshua 5:15​

In these examples the ground, the earth, had become holy. Because God said it was. God was there. When God does a thing it becomes holy, not that the thing is holy so that God does it.

In Numbers God gave the ground, the earth, surrounding the outer walls of Jerusalem to the Levites. From the foot of the outer wall, out 1500 feet, in a circumference all around Jerusalem was the ground given by God to the Levites.

"You shall also measure outside the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits, with the city in the center. This shall become theirs as pasture lands for the cities. - Numbers 35:5​

Because the Levites were the priestly tribe, they didn't share in the same gifting of land like the other tribes did. But they still needed some land to graze their animals and plant some gardens. God gave them the land 1500 ft. all around the outside perimeter of the Old City of Jerusalem. That's where the Romans had to stand to do the various siege events.

...Rewind back to the days of the Cestius siege. When Cestius began the first siege, he was standing outside the perimeter wall of Old Jerusalem. The ground, the earth, that he stood on to set up his siege qualified as a "holy place" because it was the land given by God Himself to the Levites for their gardening and cattle grazing. 1500 feet outward from the city wall.

"The pasturelands of the cities, which you shall give to the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city outward a thousand cubits all around. - Numbers 35:4​

But then for some reason Cestius abandoned the siege. Some have said that he got a message that a Cesar had died and needed to go back to Rome. When the Jews saw him leaving, they took chase. They attacked Cestius from behind and the Romans took heavy casualties. But this was the BIGGIE sign for the Christians from Luke 21. But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies. The early Christians who remembered Jesus' words were able to walk right out of the open gates of the city unmolested. The Romans were gone. The Old Time Jewish armies were gone. Anybody could just take a casual stroll out the open gates.

"During Gallus's withdrawal his column was ambushed near Beth Horon, suffering very heavy losses. He was only able to reach Antipatris with the loss of about 6,000 men and a large amount of war material.[2] Judea was now almost entirely lost to Roman control.​

Then the Jews came back and celebrated their victory. They thought that they won and God was on their side. Then events in Jerusalem would continue on as normal. They thought everything was going to be fine. But they were in a deadly countdown of days, a tribulation of the Matrix, where things seemed normal, like they do right now, but were not what they seemed to be. From 9/66 to 4/70. About three years and change. And then when Titus came and set up the real siege, the door was sealed, there would be no more escape.

If the "holy place" were some place inside the Old Jerusalem temple, it would be too late to "flee" if they waited to "see it standing" there.

So if we can consider the first century "wing of abominations", to be something seemingly as unorthodox as the Roman armies standing in the land given by God to the Levites, then it might be equally surprising to see where the "holy place" is, a place prepared by God, where our end time Abomination is standing right now where it ought not to be. (Let The Reader Understand)

The temple had ceased to be the "holy place" since the day that the curtain was rent, and to this very day. Relax the criteria and consider other possibilities for what might be a "holy place" in our appointed time of the end. When God prepares a place for the "earth" to help the woman, that place by default, becomes a holy place.

Peaceful Sabbath.

Apart from your transition to an endtime AoD I wholeheartedly agree with you. The area outside the walls of Jerusalem were considered holy when the pagan Romans initially took control over Israel. They were an "abomination."

It was still viewed as a "holy place" in 66-70 when Roman armies arrived and stood around the holy city of Jerusalem, though it was no longer holy because of the Law, but only because of God's promise to restore Israel.

This all happened in Jesus' generation, though it transitioned to an age-long period of Jewish "Punishment," the worst tribulation in Israel's history. If God does not end this present period, the Jewish People will be extinguished. There has already been a number of attempts in history to destroy them!

The AoD, therefore, is not Last Days material. But it certainly was intended to lead up to that, since the endtimes are defined by the fall and punishment of Israel.

The endtimes, therefore, are designed to come to an end! ;) But the endtimes period began way back in 70 AD, when Israel's punishment began. That is when the AoD took place that Jesus spoke of.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Yes, two different questions, related but different. When will the fall of Jerusalem take place? When will the end of the age take place?

Both are related because of the expectation of Jesus' Disciples that Jesus would usher in the Kingdom of God. How could he speak of the fall of Jerusalem when he was supposed to be bringing in the new Kingdom?

So naturally, they wanted to know when this age of Jewish Punishment, spoken of by Jesus, would come to an end? In other words, when is the end of the age of Jewish Punishment?

But Jesus did not focus on prognostications about the future, as so many prophecy enthusiasts do. Nothing wrong with speculating, but Jesus' interest primarily was in our living a godly life today, and so be prepared always for the coming Kingdom.

Of more immediate concern was the state of Israel, and Jesus wanted his Disciples to not be caught up in their sins, which was soon to bring upon the nation a horrible and long-lasting judgment. That was his immediate concern, to notify them that Jewish worship was soon to come to an end, and that the nation itself would no longer provide shelter and protection.

It was an encouragement to flee, in the understanding that this judgment was not against Christians. It was an encouragement that this was part of God's plan to extend the Gospel from Jerusalem to other parts of the world.

It wasn't the fall of the city of Jerusalem, but the buildings of the temple in it.

Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

That was in 70 A.D.

3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

 

[covenantee]

Congratulations Timtofly, you have blown preterism out of contention.
Their theory of the AoD being the Roman army, could not have taken place in 70 AD, as the Temple was destroyed 3-4 years after the Roman armies first surrounded Jerusalem and the Christians escaped.

Preterists avoid 2 Thess 2:4 like the Covid 19. But their mask has slipped and they are now at their last gasp.

Your 2 Thessalonians 2:4 has been debunked innumerable times, by your inability to recognize Paul's distinctions between "naos" and "eidóleion/hieros/hieron" temples.

Futurist fantasy, fallacy, and failure.

For the spiritually discerning (1 Corinthians 2:14), here they are again:

Paul's temples:

"naos" spiritual:

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Corinthians 3:17
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Corinthians 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Corinthians 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ephesians 2:21-22
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

2 Thessalonians 2:4
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

"eidóleion" physical:

1 Corinthians 8:10
For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

"hieros/hieron" physical:

1 Corinthians 9:13
Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

[covenantee]

Congratulations Timtofly, you have blown preterism out of contention.
Their theory of the AoD being the Roman army, could not have taken place in 70 AD, as the Temple was destroyed 3-4 years after the Roman armies first surrounded Jerusalem and the Christians escaped.

Preterists avoid 2 Thess 2:4 like the Covid 19. But their mask has slipped and they are now at their last gasp.

70 AD?

No wonder you don't know what you're talking about.

The Judean Christians fled in 66 AD, when the abomination of desolation, i.e. the Roman armies, temporarily withdrew, providing the opportunity for their escape.

 

[Marty fox]

Congratulations Timtofly, you have blown preterism out of contention.
Their theory of the AoD being the Roman army, could not have taken place in 70 AD, as the Temple was destroyed 3-4 years after the Roman armies first surrounded Jerusalem and the Christians escaped.

Preterists avoid 2 Thess 2:4 like the Covid 19. But their mask has slipped and they are now at their last gasp.

I have no idea how you think Tim debunked anything here

I am a PP not a full one and I have never avoided 2 Thess 2:4 it was Nero who set himself up as God by demanding that everyone worship him including Gods temple (the church)

 

[Randy Kluth]

It wasn't the fall of the city of Jerusalem, but the buildings of the temple in it.

Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

That was in 70 A.D.

3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Not really correct, as I view it. Yes, Jesus focused on the destruction of the temple, or the end of Jewish worship under the Law, which was supposed to take place in Jerusalem. But Jesus had told the Woman at the Well that the time was coming when worship would not just be in Jerusalem, implying that Jerusalem would fall.

Furthermore, Luke's version of the Discourse made it clear that the destruction of the temple included the defeat of the entire city. And this is confirmed by reference back to Dan 9.26-27, where it is said that both the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed.

Dan 9.26 The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary... And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation.

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near... Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

John 4.21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem."

 

[covenantee]

And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation.

Hi brother; that doesn't appear in the Hebrew, or in any English translation, that I can find.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hi brother; that doesn't appear in the Hebrew, or in any English translation, that I can find.

Okay, I'll check it out. I don't know Hebrew, but I can do some investigation. Get back with you. Thanks!

I may have been copying else somebody else's quotation of the same. If so, I need to be more careful! ;)

 

[covenantee]

Okay, I'll check it out. I don't know Hebrew, but I can do some investigation. Get back with you. Thanks!

I may have been copying else somebody else's quotation of the same. If so, I need to be more careful! ;)

Thanks; where did you copy it from?

It's the df fantasy fallacy.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thanks; where did you copy it from?

It's the df fantasy fallacy.

I'm looking now. Where did you quote my quote from?

 

[covenantee]

I'm looking now. Where did you quote my quote from?

Post 326.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Post 326.

No, I got it from the NIV online, quoting it precisely:
"And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

I will add that the online version of the NIV seems to be different than other versions of the NIV, because I just looked the passage up in my Triglot (1981), which also uses the NIV. And it reads:

"And one who causes desolation will place abominations on a wing of the temple until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

Other translations read:

KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
ESV
27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."
NLT
27 The ruler will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven, but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings. And as a climax to all his terrible deeds, he will set up a sacrilegious object that causes desecration, until the fate decreed for this defiler is finally poured out on him.”
MSG
27 "'Then for one seven, he will forge many and strong alliances, but halfway through the seven he will banish worship and prayers. At the place of worship, a desecrating obscenity will be set up and remain until finally the desecrator himself is decisively destroyed.'"
CSB
27 He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator."

I think, humbly, that it can be legitimately said that the thing being desolated is the temple. All of the translations seem to suggest that the act of desolation is some kind of violation of the *temple,* where the worship of offering sacrifices used to be performed.

 

[covenantee]

No, I got it from the NIV online, quoting it precisely:
"And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

Ah, that's their eisegesis of Daniel 9:27.

Here's the Hebrew.

 

[covenantee]

No, I got it from the NIV online, quoting it precisely:
"And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

I will add that the online version of the NIV seems to be different than other versions of the NIV, because I just looked the passage up in my Triglot (1981), which also uses the NIV. And it reads:

"And one who causes desolation will place abominations on a wing of the temple until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

Other translations read:

KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
ESV
27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."
NLT
27 The ruler will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven, but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings. And as a climax to all his terrible deeds, he will set up a sacrilegious object that causes desecration, until the fate decreed for this defiler is finally poured out on him.”
MSG
27 "'Then for one seven, he will forge many and strong alliances, but halfway through the seven he will banish worship and prayers. At the place of worship, a desecrating obscenity will be set up and remain until finally the desecrator himself is decisively destroyed.'"
CSB
27 He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator."

I think, humbly, that it can be legitimately said that the thing being desolated is the temple. All of the translations seem to suggest that the act of desolation is some kind of violation of the *temple,* where the worship of offering sacrifices used to be performed.

There's no temple in the Hebrew.

Here are the three translations that I use for comparison purposes. None reference a temple:

KJV
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

NASB
And he will confirm a covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come the one who makes desolate, until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, gushes forth on the one who makes desolate.

YLT
And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and [in] the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one.

 

[Keraz]

By referencing Daniel, either Jesus or the author directed the reader to Dan 9.26-27, where the AoD is describing as coming "on the wing of abominations to desolate." And it was a description, explicitly, of destroying "the city and the sanctuary," referring to Jerusalem and its temple.

This is where you and many, go wrong. A lot of blame is on the King James Bible.
Daniel 9:27 The prince [1] will make a firm league with the many [2] for one of the seventy. [3] But with one half spent [4] he will put a stop to the sacrifice and offerings. [5] ....the result of this abomination, made by the perpetrator of desolation. [5] Then in the end, what has been decreed concerning this desolation, will be poured out. [6] REBible

[1] The man referred to in the previous verse. The invading and destroying prince.
[2] Many; of the people living at that time in the holy Land.
[3] Not a covenant, but a 7 year peace treaty.
[4] At the 3 1/2 , or 42 month, or 1269 day point. As the time periods of Revelation.
[5] He will conquer the holy people and sit in the Temple. Zechariah 14:1-2, Revelation 13:5-8, 2 Thess 2:3
[6] The battle of Armageddon, when Jesus Returns.

I have never avoided 2 Thess 2:4 it was Nero who set himself up as God by demanding that everyone worship him including Gods temple (the church)

Nero never went to Jerusalem. He, like Caligula before him; tried to make the Jews put his image or just his flag there, but the Jews never allowed it. This was basically the trigger for the Jewish revolt.

 

[Marty fox]

This is where you and many, go wrong. A lot of blame is on the King James Bible.
Daniel 9:27 The prince [1] will make a firm league with the many [2] for one of the seventy. [3] But with one half spent [4] he will put a stop to the sacrifice and offerings. [5] ....the result of this abomination, made by the perpetrator of desolation. [5] Then in the end, what has been decreed concerning this desolation, will be poured out. [6] REBible

[1] The man referred to in the previous verse. The invading and destroying prince.
[2] Many; of the people living at that time in the holy Land.
[3] Not a covenant, but a 7 year peace treaty.
[4] At the 3 1/2 , or 42 month, or 1269 day point. As the time periods of Revelation.
[5] He will conquer the holy people and sit in the Temple. Zechariah 14:1-2, Revelation 13:5-8, 2 Thess 2:3
[6] The battle of Armageddon, when Jesus Returns.

Nero never went to Jerusalem. He, like Caligula before him; tried to make the Jews put his image or just his flag there, but the Jews never allowed it. This was basically the trigger for the Jewish revolt.

Please reread what I just said I never said anything about Jerusalem and Nero

 

[covenantee]

[5] He will conquer the holy people and sit in the Temple.

You can't even agree with your REB.

There's no temple there.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There's no temple in the Hebrew.

Here are the three translations that I use for comparison purposes. None reference a temple:

KJV
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

What is "it" in "he shall make it desolate?" In context it does appear to be the temple that is in focus from vs 26:
"The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary."

NASB
And he will confirm a covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come the one who makes desolate, until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, gushes forth on the one who makes desolate.

Around the time the NIV NT was first put out, there was a discussion in some of Ladd's works suggesting "on the wing" referred to the wing of the temple. The word apparently could mean either a bird's wing or an architectural feature of the temple building. And the NIV apparently bought that argument because they translated it as such, "on the wing." Early on, I believe Ladd was credited as one of the contributors of the NIV, although since I've not seen him credited. He's dead now, regardless.

But we see here in the NASB that the same wording is used. I actually don't believe that's correct, and prefer the "bird's wing" view.

YLT
And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and [in] the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one.

In this version, we have a people of a ruler coming "on the wing of abominations," which refers to the likeness of vultures approaching a prey, or eagles attacking a victim. Again, we must ask ourselves, what is being made desolate?

In context, I think and the translators apparently thought that the inferred subject being desolated was the temple, and so inserted it. You won't always get word for word translations in most versions, because from one language to another, expressions take on different forms.

It is perfectly legitimate, for example, to translate a pronoun by its proper noun. But some versions try real hard to be exact word for word translations and still convey the full meaning.

 

[covenantee]

What is "it" in "he shall make it desolate?" In context it does appear to be the temple that is in focus from vs 26:
"The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary."



Around the time the NIV NT was first put out, there was a discussion in some of Ladd's works suggesting "on the wing" referred to the wing of the temple. The word apparently could mean either a bird's wing or an architectural feature of the temple building. And the NIV apparently bought that argument because they translated it as such, "on the wing." Early on, I believe Ladd was credited as one of the contributors of the NIV, although since I've not seen him credited. He's dead now, regardless.

But we see here in the NASB that the same wording is used. I actually don't believe that's correct, and prefer the "bird's wing" view.



In this version, we have a people of a ruler coming "on the wing of abominations," which refers to the likeness of vultures approaching a prey, or eagles attacking a victim. Again, we must ask ourselves, what is being made desolate?

In context, I think and the translators apparently thought that the inferred subject being desolated was the temple, and so inserted it. You won't always get word for word translations in most versions, because from one language to another, expressions take on different forms.

It is perfectly legitimate, for example, to translate a pronoun by its proper noun, for example. But some versions try real hard to be exact word for word translations and still convey the full meaning.

The "it" was Judea, virtually the entirety of which was left desolate by the end of 70 AD.

Re. "wing"; you nailed it yourself in your post 321.

The eagles of the Roman armies.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The "it" was Judea, virtually the entirety of which was left desolate by the end of 70 AD.

Re. "wing"; you nailed it yourself in your post 321.

The eagles of the Roman armies.

Well, we're close but maybe not in perfect alignment. We agree on the eagles of the Roman armies. Basically, I find a perfect correlation between Dan 9.26-27 and the Olivet Discourse, though the English translations make it difficult. The "it" to me is the "sanctuary" mentioned in vs 26. But certainly the Roman armies came against both the "city and the sanctuary," as vs 26 says.

Jesus himself focused on the temple as the object against which these armies were positioned. Standing in the holy place was in effect laying siege around the walls of Jerusalem, poised to destroy the sacred sanctuary. It was the end of Jewish worship under the Law, though the legitimacy of sacrifices and offerings had actually ended at the cross. That's why Jesus disparaged the "beautiful" buildings of the temple.

Matt 24.Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”