Daniels 70-Weeks Timeline

[covenantee]

Revelation 1:5 is the sole NT instance where "archon" is applied to Christ.

It is no surprise that the KJV chose "prince" over "ruler" as the translation in Revelation 1:5. Acknowledged for its unique poetic literary style and quality, the KJV sought to choose synonyms which most closely and completely reflected the meanings which it sought to convey.

A prince is a ruler, but more than a ruler alone. He is also a noble, rooted in nobility. Christ is a Noble both divinely as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and also temporally through the line of king David. The synonym "prince" best encapsulates the extended meaning associated with Christ as an "archon" in Revelation 1:5. The KJV translators chose "prince" instead of "ruler", intentionally and deliberately.

There is thus no basis for the claim that "prince" is a very poor translation in Revelation 1:5. King James knew what he was doing.

That is not to say that every translated word in the KJV is an optimal choice. There are examples where such is not the case.

But "prince" in Revelation 1:5 is not such an example. It is an optimal choice, a logical choice, and a very good translation.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

How is it lying when I was just going by what you were saying. It would be lying if I was purposely misrepresenting what you were saying, but I'm not. If I was mistaken about what you were saying, so be it. That's just being mistaken. That isn't the same as lying. So, what is your point in arguing about the word prince in relation to Jesus then?

Then post the place where I said Jesus was never called a prince and I will recant. Otherwise you are still lying! YOu are not mistaken- You added thoughts I never did, that is lying!

That's a lie. So, you are not one to tell someone else not to lie. Stop lying yourself first.

Tell you what. go find a grammar school teacher and ask her to read that and learn something. If I am lying so is the rest of the speaking, writing world on this. YOu and the one I put on ignore have yet to refute the rules of grammar I showed.

There is a sense in which that was the case, though. So, it's a viable possibility that Jesus is the prince of the people that destroyed the city and the sanctuary.

No it is a possibility. but Daniel was not prophesying spiritual things but physical things. He was talking about a physical people, with a physical ruler doing a physical destruction. Don't you think god is smart enough to tell us if He meant the temple was going to be destroyed because of Jewish disobedience He would have done so here like He did with the Babylonian destruction?? YOu are too quick to pull teh trigger of allegorizing th escriptures when the literal is proven historically.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What difference does this make? What a waste of time. Jesus is a prince so that shows that a prince can also be a ruler. So, you can keep wasting time on semantics if you want, but I don't want any part of that since it's pointless.

Well as I never said jesus was not ever called a Prince your pointless point is what is pointless.

I just showed He is not the second prince mentioned in Daniel and that teh revelation quote calling HIm prince is a translation used only by the early translators into English. Archegos is the word translated primarily as prince. Archon is translated as ruler or leader commonly. Only in the bible of all the koine writings preserved is archon translated as prince. No where else in greek literature is it done so.

 

[Enoch111]

I just showed He is not the second prince mentioned in Daniel...

The "prince that shall come" in Daniel is NOT Christ but the Antichrist. That is obvious on the face of it.

 

[Christian Gedge]

The "prince that shall come" in Daniel is NOT Christ but the Antichrist. That is obvious on the face of it.

Daniel 7 is all about beast empires and antichrists. Daniel 9 is about the glorious atonement of Christ! When we make that distinction between Daniels visions we are on the way to understanding one of the most important Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament.

 

[Enoch111]

Daniel 7 is all about beast empires and antichrists. Daniel 9 is about the glorious atonement of Christ! When we make that distinction between Daniels visions we are on the way to understanding one of the most important Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament.

Daniel 9:24 is about the establishment of the eternal Kingdom of God on earth under Christ. Daniel 9:25 gives the time line until the crucifixion. Daniel 9:26a is about the crucifixion of Christ.

But all of Daniel's visons include visions of the kingdom of the Antichrist (the final kingdom), and Daniel 9:26b & 27 is NOT about Christ but about the Antichrist.

26b... and the people of the prince that shall come [the Antichrist] 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. And he [the Antichrist] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week [seven years]: and in the midst of the week [after 3 1/2 years] he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate [by setting up the Abomination of Desolation], even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Sir Robert Anderson -- an outstanding Brethren scholar -- wrote a book with the title "The Coming Prince", and spelled out everything. "This book examines Daniel, especially the 70 weeks, and the coming of the Antichrist, but also provides apologetic evidence for the genuineness of the book of Daniel, examining its date and authorship."

 

[covenantee]

The "prince that shall come" in Daniel is NOT Christ but the Antichrist. That is obvious on the face of it.

A figment of dispensational delusion.

There is only one individual identified as a prince in Daniel 9.

He is Messiah.

 

[covenantee]

Daniel 9:24 is about the establishment of the eternal Kingdom of God on earth under Christ. Daniel 9:25 gives the time line until the crucifixion. Daniel 9:26a is about the crucifixion of Christ.

But all of Daniel's visons include visions of the kingdom of the Antichrist (the final kingdom), and Daniel 9:26b & 27 is NOT about Christ but about the Antichrist.

26b... and the people of the prince that shall come [the Antichrist] 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. And he [the Antichrist] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week [seven years]: and in the midst of the week [after 3 1/2 years] he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate [by setting up the Abomination of Desolation], even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Sir Robert Anderson -- an outstanding Brethren scholar -- wrote a book with the title "The Coming Prince", and spelled out everything. "This book examines Daniel, especially the 70 weeks, and the coming of the Antichrist, but also provides apologetic evidence for the genuineness of the book of Daniel, examining its date and authorship."

Did Bro. Anderson ever describe how his fanciful antichrist was the spitting image of the fabrication spawned by the 16th century Jesuits of the apostate papacy, in the counter reformation which was seeking to defeat the Reformation?

They failed.

As do the delusions of Bro. Anderson and modernist dispensational futurized fallacies.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Sir Robert Anderson -- an outstanding Brethren scholar -- wrote a book with the title "The Coming Prince", and spelled out everything. "This book examines Daniel, especially the 70 weeks, and the coming of the Antichrist, but also provides apologetic evidence for the genuineness of the book of Daniel, examining its date and authorship."

I have Sir Robert's book. Ive read it. Its wrong!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Then post the place where I said Jesus was never called a prince and I will recant. Otherwise you are still lying! YOu are not mistaken- You added thoughts I never did, that is lying!

Do you acknowledge that Jesus rules or reigns over the kings of the earth as Revelation 1:5 says He does? That verse calls Him a prince. Yet you deny that He rules over the kings of the earth now, do you not? So, you gave the impression that He is not ruling over the kings of the earth as a prince. Yet, He is. So, don't blame me for your lack of communication skills. I can't help how you come across.

Tell you what. go find a grammar school teacher and ask her to read that and learn something. If I am lying so is the rest of the speaking, writing world on this. YOu and the one I put on ignore have yet to refute the rules of grammar I showed.

LOL. Keep acting like you are a grammar expert if you want, but we all know otherwise.

No it is a possibility. but Daniel was not prophesying spiritual things but physical things. He was talking about a physical people, with a physical ruler doing a physical destruction.

Either way, that happened long ago. Why do you think it's talking about some future Antichrist having anything to do with that?

Don't you think god is smart enough to tell us if He meant the temple was going to be destroyed because of Jewish disobedience He would have done so here like He did with the Babylonian destruction?? YOu are too quick to pull teh trigger of allegorizing th escriptures when the literal is proven historically.

Why did you refer to God in lowercase? Also, there is plenty of allegory in scripture, so why do you act as if it's a bad thing? But, again, either way you interpret it, it happened long ago, so there's no basis for interpreting the prince of Daniel 9:26 to be some future Antichrist. That is how you interpret it, isn't it?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The "prince that shall come" in Daniel is NOT Christ but the Antichrist. That is obvious on the face of it.

That is obviously wrong and the worst interpretation of a verse imaginable. To attribute a verse about Christ to an Antichrist instead is as bad as it gets.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well as I never said jesus was not ever called a Prince your pointless point is what is pointless.

I just showed He is not the second prince mentioned in Daniel and that teh revelation quote calling HIm prince is a translation used only by the early translators into English. Archegos is the word translated primarily as prince. Archon is translated as ruler or leader commonly. Only in the bible of all the koine writings preserved is archon translated as prince. No where else in greek literature is it done so.

You haven't shown anything. He is both a prince and a ruler, so how do you know He can't be the prince/ruler mentioned in Daniel 9:26?

 

[Enoch111]

That is obviously wrong and the worst interpretation of a verse imaginable. To attribute a verse about Christ to an Antichrist instead is as bad as it gets.

On the contrary, to attribute the evil doings of the Antichrist to Christ is worse. See Matthew 24:15.

 

[Enoch111]

I have Sir Robert's book. Ive read it. Its wrong!

That is sad indeed. Anderson is brilliant and you are way off track.

 

[covenantee]

That is sad indeed. Anderson is brilliant and you are way off track.

The Atonement Clock

By Christian Gedge

Check the trains.

 

[jeffweeder]

The "prince that shall come" in Daniel is NOT Christ but the Antichrist. That is obvious on the face of it.

What is obvious is that the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary after Christs atonement. Jesus even said so himself.
Clearly refers to the legions Rome.

Lk 21
5 And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, 6 “As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down.”

20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.

 

[covenantee]

On the contrary, to attribute the evil doings of the Antichrist to Christ is worse. See Matthew 24:15.

No antichrist to be seen except by hallucination.

See Luke 21:20.

 

[Christian Gedge]

That is sad indeed. Anderson is brilliant and you are way off track.

Covenantee has kindly given you a link to the free PDF version of 'The Atonement Clock' (post #255)

• If you wish to see a better explanation than Anderson's faulty 360-day calendar, please study chapter 3.
• If you wish to see my full treatment of Daniel's 70 weeks, please read chapters 9, 10, 11 and 12.

Thanks,
Chris

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The "prince that shall come" in Daniel is NOT Christ but the Antichrist. That is obvious on the face of it.

That is because you read with a knowledge of Grammar. Covenantal theology followers tend not to.

 

[The Light]

That is obviously wrong and the worst interpretation of a verse imaginable. To attribute a verse about Christ to an Antichrist instead is as bad as it gets.

Wrong