Confirming of the Covenant - Daniel 9:27

[covenantee]

GRAMMAR OF WHO THE "HE" IS IN DANIEL 9:27 IS NOT THE ISSUE.

Thanks for the guffaw.

Yes, to a Jesuit futurist, grammar is not an issue.

To all authors of Scripture, and to the Holy Spirit who inspired them, it is.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And what did I say in regards to scholars? Did I not say that there are apparently some scholars, who, like you, conclude there is no gap anywhere in the 70 weeks yet insist that the last person mentioned in verse 26 is who the first pronoun in verse 27 is referring to? Per this scenario, regardless if they are past scholars or modern ones, obviously they are not taking the first pronoun in verse 27 to be meaning a future ac.

As to you I don't get your point to begin with, the fact you have the prince that shall come being the Messiah in verse 25. Is not the last person mentioned in verse 26 the prince that shall come, thus the Messiah in your case? And do you not have the last person mentioned in verse 26 being who the first pronoun in verse 27 is referring to? Does this then mean you need to take your own advice in regards to what you indicated a whole lot of modernist "scholars" need to learn?

While he does interpret the prince as being the Messiah, he is not saying "the prince" in verse 26 is the antecedent to the "he" in verse 27, but rather that the specific mention of the Messiah is the antecedent to the "he" in verse 27. I know this because I've read everything he has said about this. So, he sees it just like I do in terms of what the antecedent to the "he" in verse 27 is.

After all, what I'm arguing here is not who or who not the prince that shall come is meaning, I'm arguing that this last person mentioned in verse 26 has to be who the first pronoun in verse 27 is meaning if one is reading verse 26 and 27 as is.

Right, and both he and I have told you that the antecedent for the "he" in verse 27 is the specific reference to the Messiah and not the reference to "the prince". That doesn't mean the prince can't also be the Messiah, but just that the reference to "the prince" isn't the antecedent to the "he" in verse 27 since to be an antecedent means it's the last person specifically focused on, which is the Messiah and not "the prince" (regardless of who the prince is).

But then I proposed another way to read it where it is then crystal clear who the pronouns in verse 27 are referring to in verse 26. That being the following.

If read like this---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. 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--it is obvious who the he is meaning in verse 27.

You are proposing changing scripture. Why? I don't think that's a good idea.

Equally, if read like this---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. and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate--it is obvious who this pronoun he in verse 27 is referring to in verse 26.

The reason why you might take issue with reading it like this, is obvious. Because this undeniably proves, assuming this is a valid way to read that, that you are 100% incorrect that the prince that shall come in verse 26 is meaning the Messiah in verse 25, thus is meaning the first pronoun in verse 27. In spite of that, your reasoning is, the prince that shall come is meaning the first pronoun in verse 27 since that pronoun is meaning the Messiah mentioned in verse 25 and 26, and that the Messiah mentioned in verse 25 and 26 is meaning this same prince that shall come.

The way you think just continues to baffle me. The reason I would take issue with the way you worded that is because you are changing the scripture by doing so. It is never valid to change scripture.

Yet, if what I proposed above is a valid way to read verse 26 and 27, it debunks your reasoning, not supports it.

It's not a valid way to read verses 26 and 27. When you have to resort to changing scripture to make it fit your view while trying to claim that it's valid to do so, that says a lot about how you interpret scripture. You interpret it with doctrinal bias rather than interpreting it objectively as its written. That is how this comes across to me.

And why would this be such a bad thing since this is basically killing 2 birds with one stone? Meaning it also debunks, not supports, any interpretation that takes a gap to be meaning between the 69th and 70th week, therefore, making the first pronoun in verse 27 to be meaning a future ac rather than Christ according to that reasoning. Clearly, a future ac is found in the text in verses 26 and 27, but not between the 69th and 70th week, but after the middle of the 70th week.

If read like this---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. 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--it is obvious who the he is meaning in verse 27.

Equally, if read like this---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. and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate--it is obvious who this pronoun he in verse 27 is referring to in verse 26.


Reading it like this, the former is meaning up until the middle of the week, thus no future ac to see in the text anywhere here.

While the latter is meaning after the middle of the 70th week followed by a long pause in the 70 weeks, this long pause explained by the NT church age that must precede the final days of this age prior to the beast rising out of the pit, then fulfilling it's 42 month reign. Therefore, it is in this latter section if reading it like this where a future ac can be found hidden in the text pertaining to verse 26 and 27.

It's never valid to change scripture to support your doctrine. And what is what you are doing here.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thanks for the guffaw.

Yes, to a Jesuit futurist, grammar is not an issue.

To all authors of Scripture, and to the Holy Spirit who inspired them, it is.

Hilarious. There you have it. Grammar means nothing to Douggg. No wonder he has so many strange beliefs. Sorry, Douggg, but grammar does matter. Without any regard for grammar, we can make scripture say whatever we want it to say. Is that why you don't care about grammar, Douggg?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I only hear crickets responding to my post #49. @Davidpt do you have any thoughts about what I said in that post? I'd particularly like to know your thoughts about what I said about applying the same logic you use to determine the antecedent for the "he" in Daniel 9:27 to the antecedent for "him, whose coming is after the working of Satan" in 2 Thessalonians 2:9.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The prince who shall come is the time of the end little horn person who will stop the daily sacrifice as it says in Daniel 8:11.

In Daniel 9:23-24, Gabriel said that he had come to give Daniel understanding about that time of the end little horn vision, which in Daniel 8:27 Daniel although astonished by it, indicated that the really did not understand it.

Daniel 9:
23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

The vision involving the little horn and other time of the end prophecies revealed to Daniel.

The prince who shall come, the confirmation of the covenant for 7 years, the stopping of the daily sacrifice - is all about what the little horn person will do in the 7 year time of the end 70th week of Daniel 9:27.

GRAMMAR OF WHO THE "HE" IS IN DANIEL 9:27 IS NOT THE ISSUE. The time of the end vision and prophecy involving the little horn is the issue.

This is false. In Daniel 9:23 Gabriel was not referring to any previous vision that Daniel had.

Daniel 9:23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

The word "vision" there is translated from the Hebrews word mar'ê (Strong's H4758). Like most words, that word has multiple meanings. It can refer to something that someone literally sees, whether seeing it physically with their eyes or in a dream. Or it can refer to being given prophetic spiritual insight into something by way of words without any need for a literal vision. And that is how it is meant to be understood in Daniel 9:23. What Gabriel was saying there is for Daniel to "understand the matter" and "consider the vision" or prophetic insight that he was about to give him, as recorded in Daniel 9:24-27.

Another thing to note is that the prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 was given as an answer to Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9:3-19. If you read those verses you can see that Daniel was not praying for understanding of the vision he saw recorded in Daniel 8, as would have to be the case if Gabriel was giving him more insight into that vision. Instead, he was praying for God to forgive his people, the Jews, for their sins. So, Gabriel proceeded to tell a prophecy and give a vision/prophetic insight in Daniel 9:24-27 about how that would be accomplished, which is by way of the Messiah being cut off (sacrificed) for their sins, resulting in the confirming of the new covenant.

And there is one last thing to note as well. Regarding Daniel's vision that he had in Daniel 8:1-14, it was already explained to him in Daniel 8:17-26. Why would it need to be explained again after that? It wouldn't. So, Daniel 9:24-27 is not an explanation of what Daniel's vision in Daniel 8:1-14 was about since that can be found in Daniel 8:17-26.

 

[Davidpt]

John, in Revelation 11:1-2 was told to measure the inner court of the temple of God.

Revelation 11:
1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Guess what? I don't take any of that in the literal sense, either. Obviously, Preterists take that in a literal sense, since they are taking this to mean Jerusalem and the 2nd temple before it is destroyed in 70 AD.

Obviously, you are taking that in a literal sense as well, but not for the same reasons Preterists are.

Since both you and Preterists can't be correct here if you all are coming to different conclusions, that doesn't automatically mean that one of you are correct then. There is such a thing as nobody being correct, which appears to be the case here.

Let's think about this for a minute assuming these things are meaning in a literal sense involving a literal temple in a literal city called Jerusalem in the middle east.

Verse 2 should make my point for me.

A literal temple is in view here, it is in the literal city of Jerusalem. And for a 42 literal months, the court which is without the temple, it has been given to the Gentiles, and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Since this would be meaning in the 21st century, obviously there would be television cameras and satellites above filming these events for 42 months. You then logically turn on your tv to see what is happening outside of this temple in this court that Gentiles are treading under foot forty and two months. Since these 2 verses are meaning in the literal sense according to you, what would it look like to the outside world viewing these things live on their tvs? What would they be seeing televised?

IOW, what exactly are they doing, meaning these Gentiles, for 42 months by being outside of the literal temple in this literal court? What are they hoping to accomplish? Why is it taking them 42 months to accomplish it? Why do they never manage to get inside of this literal temple but remain in limbo outside in the literal court for a literal 42 months?

 

[Douggg]

This is false. In Daniel 9:23 Gabriel was not referring to any previous vision that Daniel had.

Gabriel was sent to Daniel, and not some other angel, because it was Gabriel who explained about the time of the end vision involving the little horn person.

Daniel 9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

Daniel was probably on his knees in prayer when Gabriel came and touched him on shoulder.

The common bond between Daniel and Gabriel was in the prior encounter when Gabriel explained the time of the end vision about the little horn person who will stop the daily sacrifice, as it says in Daniel 8:11. In Daniel 9:27, Gabriel informs Daniel it will happen in the middle of the 7 year 70th week.

Daniel 9:2423 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

The "matter" of the 70 years of captivity being almost up that Daniel was praying about, Gabriel informed Daniel that it would be 7 times 70 years before all the issues that God has with Daniel's people would be completely resolved.

 

[Douggg]

IOW, what exactly are they doing, meaning these Gentiles, for 42 months by being outside of the temple in this court?

They will be worshiping the statue image of the beast-king on the temple mount - which that image will not be placed in the inner court - a walled off, limited access area.

The statue-image will be out there where everyone in Jerusalem can see it. And them in Judea will flee to the mountains. Matthew 24:15-21.

 

[covenantee]

They will be worshiping the statue image of the beast-king on the temple mount - which that image will not be placed in the inner court - a walled off, limited access area.

The statue-image will be out there where everyone in Jerusalem can see it. And them in Judea will flee to the mountains. Matthew 24:15-21.

They fled almost 2,000 years ago.

None of them listened to you.

That's why they all survived.

 

[Douggg]

They fled almost 2,000 years ago.

And will do it again.

None of them listened to you.

They will know to flee because the two witnesses will be preaching to them in Jerusalem of what's coming.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Guess what? I don't take any of that in the literal sense, either. Obviously, Preterists take that in a literal sense, since they are taking this to mean Jerusalem and the 2nd temple before it is destroyed in 70 AD.

Obviously, you are taking that in a literal sense as well, but not for the same reasons Preterists are.

Since both you and Preterists can't be correct here if you all are coming to different conclusions, that doesn't automatically mean that one of you are correct then. There is such a thing as nobody being correct, which appears to be the case here.

I agree. There is such a thing. They are both wrong (preterists and hyper-futurists like Douggg).

Revelation 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. 2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Think about it this way. Notice that John was supposed to measure some things, including "them that worship" in the temple of God. If that's supposed to be literal, then what was he being asked to do there? Measure their height and weight? That's obviously ridiculous and can't be the case. Or was he supposed to count how many people there were in a literal physical temple? What would be the point of that? None. So, it just can't be taken literally. Doing so results in the kind of absurdity that I described here.

Let's think about this for a minute assuming these things are meaning in a literal sense involving a literal temple in a literal city called Jerusalem in the middle east.

Verse 2 should make my point for me.

A literal temple is in view here, it is in the literal city of Jerusalem. And for a 42 literal months, the court which is without the temple, it has been given to the Gentiles, and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Since this would be meaning in the 21st century, obviously there would be television cameras and satellites above filming these events for 42 months. You then logically turn on your tv to see what is happening outside of this temple in this court that Gentiles are treading under foot forty and two months. Since these 2 verses are meaning in the literal sense according to you, what would it look like to the outside world viewing these things live on their tvs? What would they be seeing televised?

IOW, what exactly are they doing, meaning these Gentiles, for 42 months by being outside of the literal temple in this literal court? What are they hoping to accomplish? Why is it taking them 42 months to accomplish it? Why do they never manage to get inside of this literal temple but remain in limbo outside in the literal court for a literal 42 months?

Yep. Your illustration also reveals the absurdity of taking Revelation 11:1-2 literally. It just makes no sense at all to do so.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Gabriel was sent to Daniel, and not some other angel, because it was Gabriel who explained about the time of the end vision involving the little horn person.

There is nothing which says this. Your doctrine is entirely based on speculation rather than clear scripture.

Daniel 9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

Daniel was probably on his knees in prayer when Gabriel came and touched him on shoulder.

What was Daniel praying for? Understanding of the vision he had in Daniel 8:1-14? No. There was no reason for him to do that since an explanation for the vision had already been given in Daniel 8:17-26. No, he was praying that God would forgive the people of Israel's sins. So, Gabriel came to tell Daniel how God would go about accomplishing that.

You can see that Daniel 9:24 talks about making an end of sin, finishing the transgression and making reconciliation for iniquity. Those things were accomplished by way of the Messiah being cut off (sacrificed), so it's clear that Daniel 9:24-27 was a vision/spiritual insight given to Daniel in answer to his prayer asking God to forgive the Israelite people for their sins.

I already pointed these things out in my previous post and you didn't bother addressing what I said. Why not? Are you afraid to specifically address points that are made in opposition to your view? It sure seems that way.

The common bond between Daniel and Gabriel was in the prior encounter when Gabriel explained the time of the end vision about the little horn person who will stop the daily sacrifice, as it says in Daniel 8:11. In Daniel 9:27, Gabriel informs Daniel it will happen in the middle of the 7 year 70th week.

Nope. Again, Gabriel had already given Daniel an explanation of his Daniel 8:1-14 vision in Daniel 8:17-26. There's no basis whatsoever to think Daniel 9:24-27 was in response to that vision since it had already been explained to him.

Daniel 9:2423 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

The "matter" of the 70 years of captivity being almost up that Daniel was praying about, Gabriel informed Daniel that it would be 7 times 70 years before all the issues that God has with Daniel's people would be completely resolved.

I agree that was the "matter", but there was no indication that the 490 years would not be continuous and that it would have a gap at any point. Did the 70 years of captivity, which was prophesied about, have any gap in it? No. So, why would the 490 years? No reason for that at all. Also, what Gabriel was saying was to consider the vision/prophetic insight that he was about to give him in verses 24-27 in regards to how God would answer his prayer recorded in Daniel 9:3-19.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And will do it again.


They will know to flee because the two witnesses will be preaching to them in Jerusalem of what's coming.

What good would fleeing do in this day and age of advanced travel and technology where people can be tracked down no matter where they go and can be found no matter where they go? Please explain that to me.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand ) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

You believe this will happen in the future. Please tell me why, in the future, fleeing would be a problem for "them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days"? They can simply ride in a vehicle to flee. But, if they had to go on foot to flee to the mountains like was the case in 70 AD in order to flee the attacking Roman armies, then that would've definitely been very difficult for pregnant women and nursing mothers and would explain why Jesus said that.

Also, please tell me why fleeing from Judea would be difficult in the winter if this was talking about a future event. What would be difficult about fleeing in heated vehicles? Nothing. But, if people had to flee on foot or ride donkeys or camels, as they had to do in 70 AD, then that would certainly be very difficult because they would be out in the cold for a long time.

And, why would it be a problem for Christians to flee Judea on the sabbath in the future? Christians know that observing the sabbath the way old covenant Jews did is no longer required (unless they're SDA), so fleeing on the sabbath would be no problem.

 

[covenantee]

And will do it again.

Once did it.

They will know to flee because the two witnesses will be preaching to them in Jerusalem of what's coming.

The One Jesus witnessed it from Heaven.

 

[Douggg]

What good would fleeing do in this day and age of advanced travel and technology where people can be tracked down no matter where they go and can be found no matter where they go? Please explain that to me.

The authorities of the beast-king and military will know exactly where in the mountains them in Judea flee to.

And they will try to kill them, but God supernaturally thwarts all attempts.

Revelation 12:
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

You believe this will happen in the future. Please tell me why, in the future, fleeing would be a problem for "them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days"? They can simply ride in a vehicle to flee. But, if they had to go on foot to flee to the mountains like was the case in 70 AD in order to flee the attacking Roman armies, then that would've definitely been very difficult for pregnant women and nursing mothers and would explain why Jesus said that.

With child - means pregnant. And give suck means new born's. Leaving a hospital, in those conditions would be difficult.

Also, please tell me why fleeing from Judea would be difficult in the winter if this was talking about a future event.

Icy streets and snow.

And, why would it be a problem for Christians to flee Judea on the sabbath in the future?

It will be primarily Jews (Judaism), who are limited to how far they can travel on the sabbath, and for that reason might try to delay fleeing.

 

[Davidpt]

It's not a valid way to read verses 26 and 27. When you have to resort to changing scripture to make it fit your view while trying to claim that it's valid to do so, that says a lot about how you interpret scripture. You interpret it with doctrinal bias rather than interpreting it objectively as its written. That is how this comes across to me.

Let me see if I have this straight. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here the way you are reasoning these things then expecting others to be seeing it making perfect sense. On one hand you are arguing that the one cut off in verse 26 is the one meant in verse 27 fulfilling the midst of the week. Then on the other hand you are arguing the folowing is not a valid way to read verse 26 and 27---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: 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. LOL

And one is expected to take your argument serious when you can't even agree with something that fully supports what you are arguing? Come on, seriously, how can reading verse 26-27 like such not support what you are arguing, but instead is not a valid way to read those verses--And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: 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?

Why not? Have you changed your mind about something lately? Do you no longer think this part is meaning during the 70th week---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself? And is not this part meaning during the 70th week as well--- and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease? There you go then, it's simple, it is indeed a valid way to read that assuming you are correct that the one cut off in verse 26 is the one fulfilling the midst of the week.

I think I know what the real issue is here. If you agree this is a valid way to read this, you then have to agree with what I proposed pertaining to the rest of those 2 verses. This being the problem, that you are unwilling to be intellectually honest here since it might cause a problem with how you are interpreting the 70 weeks over all. Thus, speaking of doctrinal bias, this is a perfect example.

Again, seriously, what then is your issue with reading it like this? What part when reading it like that makes it an invalid reading?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The authorities of the beast-king and military will know exactly where in the mountains them in Judea flee to.

What's the point of fleeing then?

Revelation 12:
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

With child - means pregnant. And give suck means new born's. Leaving a hospital, in those conditions would be difficult.

Not all women who are pregnant and not all nursing mothers are in the hospital. Most are not. So, I don't buy this explanation at all. Jesus indicated that it would be a problem for all pregnant women and nursing mothers, and that was a problem in 70 AD.

Icy streets and snow.

LOL. You have answers for everything. Usually not any good answers, but answers nonetheless. Guess what, Douggg? It doesn't even snow much at all in Judea. It's the cold conditions that Jesus was talking about, not ice and snow. Nice try, but you have provided yet another unconvincing explanation for what Jesus said.

It will be primarily Jews (Judaism), who are limited to how far they can travel on the sabbath, and for that reason might try to delay fleeing.

You think unbelieving Jews who believe in a false religion (Judaism) are going to heed a warning given by Jesus, the one who they deny is the Messiah? Doug, please get serious. That's strike 3. The third unconvincing explanation. You're out.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let me see if I have this straight. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here the way you are reasoning these things then expecting others to be seeing it making perfect sense.

Which one of us has to change the text to fit our view? I'll give you a hint. It's not me. You are putting yourself in the Twilight Zone but resorting to changing the text instead of leaving it as is.

Did you see the conclusion you would have to draw if you used your understanding of antecedents in 2 Thessalonians 2:8-9? It results in concluding that the Lord is "him, whose coming is after the working of Satan". Talk about being in the Twilight Zone.

On one hand you are arguing that the one cut off in verse 26 is the one meant in verse 27 fulfilling the midst of the week. Then on the other hand you are arguing the folowing is not a valid way to read verse 26 and 27---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: 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. LOL

As usual, you missed the point. Do you do that on purpose or do you just have trouble understanding what others are saying for whatever reason? Did I say that the way that is worded is not true? No. That was not my point. Maybe if I would have made my point after the second time you changed the text to make it fit your view, then you wouldn't have missed it. My point is that there is no reason to change the text. It's understandable as it is. It seems to me that you are just trying to avoid that you are not seeing what the antecedent of the "he" in verse 27 is. You distract from that by changing the wording of the verses.

And one is expected to take your argument serious when you can't even agree with something that fully supports what you are arguing? Come on, seriously, how can reading verse 26-27 like such not support what you are arguing, but instead is not a valid way to read those verses--And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: 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?

For goodness sakes, I was not disagreeing with what the text said. Please grow up, David. Why in the world would I do that? Of course I wouldn't. So, why wouldn't you realize I couldn't possibly be doing that and I must have had some other point besides that? Which I did. I'm simply saying there is no reason to change the verses from how they are written.

What I actually said in response to you posting that was "You are proposing changing scripture. Why? I don't think that's a good idea.". How does saying that mean I disagree with the text you quoted? I didn't say I disagreed with it. I disagree with changing scripture at all. There's no need for it. The second time you changed the scripture you made it agree with your view. What is the point of doing that? There's no reason to change the words of scripture at all like you're trying to do.

Why not? Have you changed your mind about something lately? Do you no longer think this part is meaning during the 70th week---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself? And is not this part meaning during the 70th week as well--- and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease?

Again, seriously, what then is your issue with reading it like this? What part when reading it like that makes it an invalid reading?

Again, seriously, I'm saying there is no need to change it from how it is actually written. The way it is written supports my view. That's all I'm saying. The other way you rewrote it supported your view. I'm saying there's no reason to rewrite it at all. I believe the way it's written supports my view and not yours because of how antecedents work. Can't we just stick to discussing that instead of trying to rewrite the verse for no good reason?

 

[Douggg]

What's the point of fleeing then?

To keep from being persecuted.

Not all women who are pregnant and not all nursing mothers are in the hospital. Most are not. So, I don't buy this explanation at all. Jesus indicated that it would be a problem for all pregnant women and nursing mothers, and that was a problem in 70 AD.

Most women give birth to their children in hospitals.

LOL. You have answers for everything. Usually not any good answers, but answers nonetheless. Guess what, Douggg? It doesn't even snow much at all in Judea. It's the cold conditions that Jesus was talking about, not ice and snow. Nice try, but you have provided yet another unconvincing explanation for what Jesus said.

Yes, it can snow in Jerusalem. Do an image search on snow in Jerusalem.

You think unbelieving Jews who believe in a false religion (Judaism) are going to heed a warning given by Jesus, the one who they deny is the Messiah? Doug, please get serious. That's strike 3. The third unconvincing explanation. You're out.

The two witnesses in Jerusalem will be prophesying to the Jews of what is coming and what to do..

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

To keep from being persecuted.

But, you said yourself "The authorities of the beast-king and military will know exactly where in the mountains them in Judea flee to.". So, fleeing does them no good to avoid being persecuted since "the authorities of the beast-king and military" would know where they are and be able to persecute them there. So, what is the reason for them to flee in that case? I hope you are not expecting me to buy your answers to my questions, because they are far from convincing. Thank you for answering them, though.

Most women give birth to their children in hospitals.

Are you purposely missing my point? Are women only pregnant when they go to the hospital? Or are they pregnant for months before that as well? Show me where it indicates that Jesus was only talking about women who are pregnant in hospitals.

Similarly, do women only nurse their babies while they are in the hospital or do they continue nursing them for months (at least) afterwards as well? Show me where Jesus indicated that He was only talking about women who were nursing their babies in hospitals.

Yes, it can snow in Jerusalem. Do an image search on snow in Jerusalem.

Again, are you reading what I'm saying or not? Did I say it doesn't ever snow there? I did not. What did I actually say? Did you read it? I said it doesn't snow much at all there. Which is true. So, that can't be what Jesus was alluding to.

Look at the average daily temperatures in Jerusalem by month:




As you can see, it is not even cold enough to snow there most of the time and it's not as if it actually snows every time on the rare occasions when it is cold enough to snow there. So, it clearly does not snow there much at all. Plus, in this day and age, snow is not a problem for traveling. Ever heard of snow plows and snow tires? So, again, I'm not finding your answers to be convincing at all.

When you look at the typical weather in Jerusalem and consider that even if it ever does snow the snow can be easily removed, any honest person will acknowledge that there is no way that Jesus was talking about dealing with snow when indicating that fleeing in the winter would be difficult. He had to be referring to dealing with it being cold instead. But, 40 to 50 degrees is not hard to deal with in this day and age when most people have warm coats to wear. But, if someone had to be outside for an extended period of time in 70 AD while fleeing to the mountains during the winter without the luxury of having the kind of coats we have today, that would have felt pretty cold after awhile. Especially at night and especially if it was raining and/or windy. If it rained they would have had trouble staying warm and dry and it would've made it slippery in some places and dangerous for traveling on foot. None of which is a problem in today's day and age when it comes to traveling during the winter in and around Jerusalem.

The bottom line here is that fleeing Judea during the winter in this day and age would not be much of a problem at all, so it makes no sense to think that Jesus was prophesying about the distant future there. He clearly had a more near future event in mind when traveling during the winter would be a problem without the aid of the modern technology, travel and clothing that we have now.

The two witnesses in Jerusalem will be prophesying to the Jews of what is coming and what to do..

You think unbelieving Jews who are into the false religion of Judaism are going to listen to what two people (you believe it is two individuals, right?) sharing the gospel and Christian prophecy are telling them to do? No chance. This is yet another very unconvincing comment from you.