Daniels 70-Weeks Timeline

[Christian Gedge]

What--no 2,000 year gap?!!

Just kidding!
This is as good as any I have seen, and represents the times according to the perspective of Daniel, which is appropriate because that is who received the prophecy. Good job!

Sorry for the delay Scott. Yeah, I’m not a fan of gaps.

However, looking at things from Daniel's perspective is somewhat limited. Within the "Daniel's people" context, is also the greater context of all peoples and nations, as "a time, times, and half a time." By broadening the scope from weeks to times, the emphasis is more accurately less of a timeline, and more of an event line. The point being, that, yes, most do look at the events from the perspective of the world...but in reality--it is God's reality that we ought to be looking at rather than the would-be reality of men. As events of God in whom there is "no shadow of turning"--no time, and no timeline--time is irrelevant.

One of the most interesting research projects I’ve ever done relates to the ‘weeks’ and how they were actually an ancient calendar. I called it ‘The Atonement Clock’ It’s published now, or available free as a PDF file. Have a look.

 

[Davy]

The scriptures do not say "idol."

Doesn't have to say specifically the word 'idol'. It is assumed you know what God calls an 'abomination' per His Word.

Deut 7:25-26
25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.

26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.
KJV

And here is what the actual Hebrew is for "abominations" in that Daniel 9:27 verse...


OT:8251
shiqquwts (shik-koots'); or shiqquts (shik-koots'); from OT:8262; disgusting, i.e. filthy; especially idolatrous or (concretely) an idol:

KJV - abominable filth (idol, -ation), detestable (thing).
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006, 2010 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

 

[ScottA]

Doesn't have to say specifically the word 'idol'. It is assumed you know what God calls an 'abomination' per His Word.

Deut 7:25-26
25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.

26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.
KJV

And here is what the actual Hebrew is for "abominations" in that Daniel 9:27 verse...


OT:8251
shiqquwts (shik-koots'); or shiqquts (shik-koots'); from OT:8262; disgusting, i.e. filthy; especially idolatrous or (concretely) an idol:

KJV - abominable filth (idol, -ation), detestable (thing).
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006, 2010 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

That is reasonable, but you lean on your own understanding. Daniel's prophecy gives its own definition clarified by Christ:

"Of desolation...stand in the holy place (whosoreadeth, let him understand)."
​

Who makes desolate by the Judgment...and who is the holy place but Christ?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

There's only one prince in the passage.

He is Messiah.

The word "antichrist" does not appear. It is a dispensational delusion.

Messiah was Commander-In-Chief of the Roman armies, who were His agents of judgment and destruction upon Israel. Titus the Roman general acknowledged the Divine Orchestration of the event.

Wow how covenantalist love to rewrite Scriptures. We better tell tutus He wasn't in charge.

sorry but your hypothesis doesn't stand the test grammatically, biblically, historically, and sanity.

I suppose you have Jesus as commander in chief of the nazis as well!

 

[covenantee]

Wow how covenantalist love to rewrite Scriptures. We better tell tutus He wasn't in charge.

sorry but your hypothesis doesn't stand the test grammatically, biblically, historically, and sanity.

I suppose you have Jesus as commander in chief of the nazis as well!

Wow how dispens see their hallucinatory appartition antichrist everywhere they look.

Since they don't believe that it was Christ who destroyed Jerusalem, it musta been their antichrist who did it. Maybe that guy tutus.

Imagine that. Like they do.

 

[covenantee]

Wow how covenantalist love to rewrite Scriptures. We better tell tutus He wasn't in charge.

sorry but your hypothesis doesn't stand the test grammatically, biblically, historically, and sanity.

I suppose you have Jesus as commander in chief of the nazis as well!

"Grammatically".

Thanks for the guffaw.

Readers will note your own flawless grammar, and therefore your eminent qualifications to exegete Daniel 9:25-27 grammatically.

So, using your flawless grammatical processes, describe how "antichrist" appears grammatically in the said passage.

Meanwhile, here is the grammatical exegesis:

1. The "he's" in Daniel 9:27 have two possible referents in Daniel 9:26. They are "Messiah" and "prince".
2. "Messiah" in Daniel 9:26 has one possible referent in Daniel 9:25. It is "Messiah" in "Messiah the Prince".
3. "prince" in Daniel 9:26 has one possible referent in Daniel 9:25. It is "Prince" in "Messiah the Prince".
4. Thus all referents resolve to "Messiah the Prince".

And let's not have any dispensational bilge that "prince" in Daniel 9:26 cannot be Messiah because it is not capitalized as "Prince".

Revelation 1:5
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Your turn, if you want it.

 

[Davy]

That is reasonable, but you lean on your own understanding. Daniel's prophecy gives its own definition clarified by Christ:

"Of desolation...stand in the holy place (whosoreadeth, let him understand)."
​

Who makes desolate by the Judgment...and who is the holy place but Christ?

That's funny, me leaning on my 'own' understanding when you can't even understand about that 'abomination' involving desecration of the temple, and NOT destruction. Clear the beam in your own eye.

 

[Timtofly]

You obviously are not understanding the point I was making. I was addressing that person's view. If you have a different view then you can just ignore what I was saying since it didn't apply to your particular view.

Most Premills would say that sin occurs during the Millennium and a vast majority of Premils would say that sin occurs during Satan's little season. So, it seems that all Premills except you believe that sin will occur after the return of Christ. So, that is why I question their understanding of what the fulfillment of making an end of sins means and why I ask them when they think that will be fulfilled.

Yet it will not be fulfilled until the 70th week ends. It is not fulfilled now for the same reason, sin. There is still sin.

 

[ScottA]

That's funny, me leaning on my 'own' understanding when you can't even understand about that 'abomination' involving desecration of the temple, and NOT destruction. Clear the beam in your own eye.

You even say it but don't know what you've said.

Who is the Temple?​

I have told you, but you couldn't hear it.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Wow how dispens see their hallucinatory appartition antichrist everywhere they look.

Since they don't believe that it was Christ who destroyed Jerusalem, it musta been their antichrist who did it. Maybe that guy tutus.

Imagine that. Like they do.

Well seeing how titus led the armiesd that destroyed Jerusalem yea we do kind of give HIm credit for being the one.

and Yes we follow rules of grammar when we read grammar and not just decide which rules we will and will not follow. sorry about you.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

1. The "he's" in Daniel 9:27 have two possible referents in Daniel 9:26. They are "Messiah" and "prince".
2. "Messiah" in Daniel 9:26 has one possible referent in Daniel 9:25. It is "Messiah" in "Messiah the Prince".
3. "prince" in Daniel 9:26 has one possible referent in Daniel 9:25. It is "Prince" in "Messiah the Prince".
4. Thus all referents resolve to "Messiah the Prince".

Let us look at your errors in thinking here.

Fist the verses:

Daniel 9:26-27
King James Version

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

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.


1. In every language I have studied (five) personal pronouns when not specifically modifed as these are not, always, ALWAYS refer back to the nearest antecedant that matches in number and gender. IN both "hes" in 27 it is the Prine of the people to come. Not Messiah the prince.

2. Yes Messiah refers to jesus alone and not to the prince of the people who come and destroy- that we know from history is a Roman ruler.

3. No prince in verse 26 is part of a new thought not a continuation of the previous thought. We kknow this by the phrase "of the people to come- it shows a new thought with a new ruler. so Grammatically Messiah is not a possible refereence to this man.

4. False information and utilizing false rules of grammar always results in false conclusions.

 

[covenantee]

Let us look at your errors in thinking here.

Fist the verses:

Daniel 9:26-27
King James Version

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

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.


1. In every language I have studied (five) personal pronouns when not specifically modifed as these are not, always, ALWAYS refer back to the nearest antecedant that matches in number and gender. IN both "hes" in 27 it is the Prine of the people to come. Not Messiah the prince.

2. Yes Messiah refers to jesus alone and not to the prince of the people who come and destroy- that we know from history is a Roman ruler.

3. No prince in verse 26 is part of a new thought not a continuation of the previous thought. We kknow this by the phrase "of the people to come- it shows a new thought with a new ruler. so Grammatically Messiah is not a possible refereence to this man.

4. False information and utilizing false rules of grammar always results in false conclusions.

Let us examine your attempt at grammatical analysis.

1. I listed "prince" in verse 26 as a referent of the "he's" in verse 27.
2. There is only one individual identified as a prince in the passage, and it is Messiah, who from Scripture and history was a prince long before any Roman ruler.
3. There is no "new ruler" in verse 26. There is Messiah the prince, and His people who were the Roman armies under His command and control to deliver the judgment and destruction which He had purposed.
4. Inability to understand grammar, Scripture, and history inescapably result in doctrinal delusion.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yet it will not be fulfilled until the 70th week ends. It is not fulfilled now for the same reason, sin. There is still sin.

Have you ever considered that making an end of sins is not referring to the literal end of sin, but rather is referring to Jesus taking away the sins of the world by way of His sacrifice?

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

Daniel 9:24 is all about Jesus and what He would come to accomplish. When He was on the cross and said "It is finished" what do you think was finished?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let us look at your errors in thinking here.

Fist the verses:

Daniel 9:26-27
King James Version

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

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.


1. In every language I have studied (five) personal pronouns when not specifically modifed as these are not, always, ALWAYS refer back to the nearest antecedant that matches in number and gender. IN both "hes" in 27 it is the Prine of the people to come. Not Messiah the prince.

Using your rules of grammar and applying them to another passage, it would be Jesus "whose coming is after the working of Satan" since He was the most recent person to be referenced before that in this passage:

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

You might want to rethink your understanding of grammar since your current understanding results in Jesus being the one "whose coming is after the working of Satan". Ouch.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Let us examine your attempt at grammatical analysis.

1. I listed "prince" in verse 26 as a referent of the "he's" in verse 27.
2. There is only one individual identified as a prince in the passage, and it is Messiah, who from Scripture and history was a prince long before any Roman ruler.
3. There is no "new ruler" in verse 26. There is Messiah the prince, and His people who were the Roman armies under His command and control to deliver the judgment and destruction which He had purposed.
4. Inability to understand grammar, Scripture, and history inescapably result in doctrinal delusion.

And the prince in verse 26 is of the people who will come and destrouy the sanctruary, who is different that Messiah the prince. Otherwise the construct of teh sentence would be different. I amnot here to teach basic rules of grammar. You should know this by npow.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Using your rules of grammar and applying them to another passage, it would be Jesus "whose coming is after the working of Satan" since He was the most recent person to be referenced before that in this passage:

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

You might want to rethink your understanding of grammar since your current understanding results in Jesus being the one "whose coming is after the working of Satan". Ouch.

"Sigh"

be awake this time and pay attention. This is a totally fdifferent construct than Daniel.
Whose coming is after teh working of Satan is the modifier for him!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

"Sigh"

be awake this time and pay attention. This is a totally fdifferent construct than Daniel.
Whose coming is after teh working of Satan is the modifier for him!

And what is the antecedent of "him" in that passage? That is the point I was making, which you missed. Using the same type of grammar rule you're using in Daniel 9:26-27, the antecedent of "him" in 2 Thess 2:8 would be "the Lord". Yet, we know that "him" in verse 8 is not referring to the Lord. So, your grammar rule fails in that passage. Why can't you just admit that?

 

[covenantee]

And the prince in verse 26 is of the people who will come and destrouy the sanctruary, who is different that Messiah the prince. Otherwise the construct of teh sentence would be different. I amnot here to teach basic rules of grammar. You should know this by npow.

Not different. He is identified as "prince" exclusively, and there is only one prince in the passage. He is Messiah.

You "amnot here to teach basic rules of grammar" because you haven't learned them.

Stop trying to impose your dispensational distortions upon the Inspired Constructs of the Inspired Word.

 

[quietthinker]

Not different. He is identified as "prince" exclusively, and there is only one prince in the passage. He is Messiah.

You "amnot here to teach basic rules of grammar" because you choose to reject them.

Stop trying to impose your dispensational distortions upon the Inspired Constructs of the Inspired Word.

....and who can escape advice and rules?.....it's dished out by all.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

And what is the antecedent of "him" in that passage? That is the point I was making, which you missed. Using the same type of grammar rule you're using in Daniel 9:26-27, the antecedent of "him" in 2 Thess 2:8 would be "the Lord". Yet, we know that "him" in verse 8 is not referring to the Lord. So, your grammar rule fails in that passage. Why can't you just admit that?

Are you really that bereft of basic grammatic knowledge or are you purposely playing stupid? The modifier is the description afterwards !

Even HIM, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with..... the phrase in commas . This is known as an attributive tag and modifies and identifies the Him! when a modifier occurs ,either before or after a personal pronoun, that is the exception to the rule! NO charge for teh grammar lesson.