Daniels 70-Weeks Timeline

[Ronald Nolette]

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.

That there is only one prince is your covenant confusions showing forward.

I do have to teach people here basic grammar because it seems covenant believers have forsaken basic rules of grammar when it comes to reading and understanding Scripture but let us look one more time and hopefully your training in grammar will kick in.

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.

If this was inspired by God to read this way:

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and 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.

We would have not wasted pages of discussion for I would agree with you! But God did not inspire it that way, he added an attributive tag to identify the prince. "of the people that shall come and destroy the sanctuary. Defines specifically the identity of this "sar" or ruler a roman ruler. No where else in Scripture will you find such a construct and it means one person alone. Why? Because it is a horrendous grammatical error and God is the author of grammar so we could know and understand when we speak and write!

If covenant believers read newspapers like they read the bible, I dread the misinformation their brains are clogged with.

 

[covenantee]

That there is only one prince is your covenant confusions showing forward.

I do have to teach people here basic grammar because it seems covenant believers have forsaken basic rules of grammar when it comes to reading and understanding Scripture but let us look one more time and hopefully your training in grammar will kick in.

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.

If this was inspired by God to read this way:

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and 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.

We would have not wasted pages of discussion for I would agree with you! But God did not inspire it that way, he added an attributive tag to identify the prince. "of the people that shall come and destroy the sanctuary. Defines specifically the identity of this "sar" or ruler a roman ruler. No where else in Scripture will you find such a construct and it means one person alone. Why? Because it is a horrendous grammatical error and God is the author of grammar so we could know and understand when we speak and write!

If covenant believers read newspapers like they read the bible, I dread the misinformation their brains are clogged with.

Why do you persist in your misquote?
The verse does not read "prince of the people".
It reads "people of the prince".
The prince is unequivocally identified through grammatical referents as Messiah.
And I've described in previous posts how His people were the Roman armies, His agents of judgment and destruction.
Your misquote is one obvious source of your confusion.
Correct it.

I get truth from Scripture.
Not from newspapers.

 

[Christian Gedge]

This may help:

After the sixty-two weeks Messiah (Jesus) shall be cut off, but not for himself; and the people (Roman troops in ad 70) of the prince who is to come (Titus, a roman general and prince) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.

He (Messiah) shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week (3½ yrs after his revealing) shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. (temple curtain torn) And on the wing of abominations (ongoing sacrifice an abomination) shall be one who makes desolate, (Titus destroys temple) even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate. (judgement on Jerusalem)
Dan 9:26-27 (bracketed notes added)

 

[quietthinker]

And on the wing of abominations (ongoing sacrifice an abomination) shall be one who makes desolate, (Titus destroys temple) even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate. (judgement on Jerusalem)
Dan 9:26-27 (bracketed notes added)

could this later part of the text quoted above reach beyond the destruction of Jerusalem to the end of time?

 

[Christian Gedge]

could this later part of the text quoted above reach beyond the destruction of Jerusalem to the end of time?

Good comment. I think its primary referral is AD 70. But I part company with Preterists who insist that 'abominations' and 'desolations' *only* refer to AD 70. My view is there will be another destruction of Jerusalem and my prayer is that many Jews will find Jesus at that end of time.

Dan 7 and 12 are more to do with end time IMO. Dan 9 is focused on Christ's atonement.

 

[covenantee]

This may help:

After the sixty-two weeks Messiah (Jesus) shall be cut off, but not for himself; and the people (Roman troops in ad 70) of the prince who is to come (Titus, a roman general and prince) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.

He (Messiah) shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week (3½ yrs after his revealing) shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. (temple curtain torn) And on the wing of abominations (ongoing sacrifice an abomination) shall be one who makes desolate, (Titus destroys temple) even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate. (judgement on Jerusalem)
Dan 9:26-27 (bracketed notes added)

Chris, that's the dispensational error.

Messiah is the only individual identified as a prince in the passage. If he is mistaken as Titus, then the grammatical referents mean that the "he's" in verse 27 refer to Titus.

Titus was temporal prince. But he was under the divine command and control of the eternal "prince of the kings of the earth" (Revelation 1:5).

Messiah.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Messiah is the only individual identified as a prince in the passage. If he is mistaken as Titus, then the grammatical referents mean that the "he's" in verse 27 refer to Titus.

Titus was temporal prince. But he was under the divine command and control of the eternal "prince of the kings of the earth".

I don’t have a problem with text that toggles between 2 people. Your observation that Titus was under the control of the ‘eternal prince’ sounds pretty good to me too. You and I click on 95% of things. (almost) :cool:

 

[covenantee]

I don’t have a problem with text that toggles between 2 people. Your observation that Titus was under the control of the ‘eternal prince’ sounds pretty good to me too. You and I click on 95% of things. (almost) :cool:

Amen brother.

But how do you explain the "he's" in verse 27 who would then be referring to Titus?

 

[Davy]

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.

Ignorant.

 

[ScottA]

Ignorant.

 

[Timtofly]

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?

From whose point of view? The Lamb was slain from the foundation of creation in God's perspective. Sin was literally over before it started.

Have you symbolically stopped sinning and live in sinless perfection?

When sin stops and is taken away, it will be noticeable, not some unobservable phenomenon.

The Cross is the only means to remove sin from every individual. Still not the same as time being up for sin at the sounding of the 7th Trumpet.

The taste of death was finished at the Cross. The work of Messiah was finished at the Cross. Did Jesus stop being the King at the Cross? Abraham's bosom stopped at the Cross. All of the OT redeemed were given permanent incorruptible physical bodies, and allowed into Paradise at the Cross. The Holy of Holies stopped at the Cross. Now upon physical death, Adam's dead corruptible flesh stopped at the Cross. Now we have the Resurrection and the Life. All in Paradise have a permanent incorruptible physical body. The dead no longer have to stay that way, but adopted into God's living family, since the Cross.

Sin over with, that is during the Millennium reign of Christ the King after the Second Coming which brings Jesus to earth to rule for 1,000 years.

 

[Timtofly]

This may help:

After the sixty-two weeks Messiah (Jesus) shall be cut off, but not for himself; and the people (Roman troops in ad 70) of the prince who is to come (Titus, a roman general and prince) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.

He (Messiah) shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week (3½ yrs after his revealing) shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. (temple curtain torn) And on the wing of abominations (ongoing sacrifice an abomination) shall be one who makes desolate, (Titus destroys temple) even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate. (judgement on Jerusalem)
Dan 9:26-27 (bracketed notes added)

It helps remove the Second Coming from these verses. There is no finishing the 70th weeks, but only a cliff hanger of death and destruction for the last 1992 years. The last 3.5 years are still future in this rendition of interpretation.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Why do you persist in your misquote?
The verse does not read "prince of the people".
It reads "people of the prince".
The prince is unequivocally identified through grammatical referents as Messiah.
And I've described in previous posts how His people were the Roman armies, His agents of judgment and destruction.
Your misquote is one obvious source of your confusion.
Correct it.

I get truth from Scripture.
Not from newspapers.

Same difference. but it is good to see you are more concerned with my "misquote" than your misinterpretation of the passage.

We have reached a dead end. Go to someone who teaches English grammar and ask them and see your covenantal redefining is wrong. Have the last word if you wish.

I hope you do not teach people to read like you read the Scriptures.

 

[covenantee]

Same difference. but it is good to see you are more concerned with my "misquote" than your misinterpretation of the passage.

We have reached a dead end. Go to someone who teaches English grammar and ask them and see your covenantal redefining is wrong. Have the last word if you wish.

I hope you do not teach people to read like you read the Scriptures.

If you can't quote correctly, you certainly can't interpret correctly.

As an erstwhile commercial editor, I can assure you that I know my grammar.

I let Scripture have the last word.

I let Scripture be the teacher.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

If you can't quote correctly, you certainly can't interpret correctly.

As an erstwhile commercial editor, I can assure you that I know my grammar.

I let Scripture have the last word.

I let Scripture be the teacher.

Thus ends this lost cause!

 

[covenantee]

Thus ends this lost cause!

But God's Cause wasn't lost.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

From whose point of view?

I showed you the context of what I was talking about. Are you unable to understand what it means for Christ to have taken away the sins of the world? It appears so.

The Lamb was slain from the foundation of creation in God's perspective. Sin was literally over before it started.

This is complete nonsense. People are obviously still sinning. Also, you are misinterpreting Revelation 13:7. It's not saying the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, it's saying the book of life was created from the foundation of the world. The Lamb was slain about 2,000 years ago, not at the foundation of the world. It's talking about Jesus, as a human, being slain. That did not happen before the foundation of the world.

Have you symbolically stopped sinning and live in sinless perfection?

What does that even mean? You ask the most ridiculous questions I've ever seen.

When sin stops and is taken away, it will be noticeable, not some unobservable phenomenon.

So, your answer to my question as to whether or not you have considered the possibility of verses like John 1:29 and 1 John 3:5 being related to making an end of sins is obviously no.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

You didn't address my point at all. You completely missed it. I was talking about "him" in relation to the preceding verse, not in relation to the text that follows it. Did you do that because you're purposely playing stupid or are you just ignorant and terrible at reading comprehension?

I don't need a grammar lesson from someone who can't even recognize that Daniel 9:27 is talking about Christ confirming the new covenant. That alone shows you are a complete failure at grammar.

 

[Timtofly]

I showed you the context of what I was talking about. Are you unable to understand what it means for Christ to have taken away the sins of the world? It appears so.

This is complete nonsense. People are obviously still sinning. Also, you are misinterpreting Revelation 13:7. It's not saying the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, it's saying the book of life was created from the foundation of the world. The Lamb was slain about 2,000 years ago, not at the foundation of the world. It's talking about Jesus, as a human, being slain. That did not happen before the foundation of the world.

What does that even mean? You ask the most ridiculous questions I've ever seen.

So, your answer to my question as to whether or not you have considered the possibility of verses like John 1:29 and 1 John 3:5 being related to making an end of sins is obviously no.

Obviously you don't accept God's view that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. That is why there is the book of Atonement. You cannot have an Atonement prior to the Lamb slain.

Taking away the sin per Daniel 9 is literally a creation without sin.

But obviously you view everything concerning this point as only symbolic. Although you accept a literal Cross at some point in the first century.

You are the one rejecting a 1,000 year reign of Jesus as King on earth without any sin or death and decay from the curse placed on Adam. 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."

Yep, the Lamb already a done deal. 1 John 3:5

"And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin."

The Lamb took away the sins of Enoch, Noah, and Abraham also.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Obviously you don't accept God's view that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.

Don't ever tell me that I don't accept God's view. What is wrong with you? Of course I accept God's view. As wrong as I think you are a vast majority of the time, I still wouldn't tell you that you don't accept God's view. What I don't accept is how Revelation 13:8 is sometimes translated in English. I believe this is a better translation of that verse:

Revelation 13:8 (NASB) All who live on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slaughtered.

That is why there is the book of Atonement. You cannot have an Atonement prior to the Lamb slain.

The Lamb was slain about 2,000 years ago, not before the foundation of the world. It's talking about Jesus being physically killed. That obviously wasn't possible until He was born into the world as a human being and then later killed.

Taking away the sin per Daniel 9 is literally a creation without sin.

But obviously you view everything concerning this point as only symbolic.

You're wrong again. Do you ever tire of being wrong? Apparently not. Is it symbolic to say that Jesus "appeared so that he might take away our sins"? No. So, I don't view it as symbolic as you say. Because of Jesus our sins (the penalty for them) are literally taken away. And that's because "in him is no sin" (literally).

1 John 3:5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.

Although you accept a literal Cross at some point in the first century.

You are the one rejecting a 1,000 year reign of Jesus as King on earth without any sin or death and decay from the curse placed on Adam. 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."

Yep, the Lamb already a done deal. 1 John 3:5

"And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin."

The Lamb took away the sins of Enoch, Noah, and Abraham also.

Yes, He did, so why can't you recognize that as being related to Daniel 9:24 then?