Jesus said, "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter".
Does El Al Airlines have difficulty flying in the winter?
Confirming of the Covenant - Daniel 9:27
- Thread starter Davy
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does El Al Airlines have difficulty flying in the winter?
I'm going to let you win here since I feel you adequately proved your point per this example. But even so, the way I am now reading Daniel 9:26a, 26b, 27a and 27b, is like such. 26a 27a, 26b 27b. Reading it like that it can't get any clearer as to who all the pronouns in verse 27 are referring to in verse 26. Reading it like this there is no connection between 26b and 27a whatsoever, which should be something in your favor if you are arguing that the one that fulfills 26a is the same one that fulfills 27a. Therefore, it is no longer relevant who the last person mentioned in verse 26 is, that being this prince to come in 26b. He is not present during 27a no matter who he is, unless he is meaning Christ, which he clearly isn't. He is only present when 26b and 27b are meaning.
I guess I should maybe revise some of what I said here. There still is a connection between 26b and 27a, but the connection is not involving the same era of time. Therefore, it doesn't matter who one takes the prince that shall come, to be. This prince is not fulfilling anything in 27a, he is only fulfilling things pertaining to 26b and 27b.
If one takes 26b to mean the ac, or if one takes 26b to mean Titus, so what? Can't force that to fit 27a if it is 26a that belongs with 27a and not 26b instead. For the life of me I can't figure out why you opposing things I am proposing when things I am proposing support your interpretation of 27a, not cause issues for it instead.
I know how it works with some of you though, which I guess makes me different from some of you. IMO, it is better to at least meet in the middle somewhere rather than nowhere at all. Compared to how some of you come across, it's either all your way or no way, period.
BTW, I view scholars the same way as you do, therefore, you are clearly wrong with some of what you said about me in this post in relation to scholars and how I view them. The way you view them, which you expressed some of that in this post, I couldn't agree with you more. You are spot on.
Edited to add this.
In case it is not clear to some, by 26a, 26b, 27a, 27b, I am meaning the following.
26a) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself
26b) 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.
27a) 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
27b) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Just like all coins have to have two sides to be a complete coin, the same is true for the 70th week, that it has to have a first half and a 2nd half in order to be a complete week. Where then is the 2nd half recorded if not meaning 26b and 27b, or at least 27b if one disagrees that 26b and 27b are involving the same era of time? As if it makes sense that Gabriel was so absent-minded at the time that he simply forgot to inform Daniel of any events pertaining to the 2nd half of the 70th week.
Last edited:
The bad guys will attempt to get to them, but the earth opens and swallows that metaphoric flood - i.e. there will be an earthquake causing a crevice that the attackers will fall into. There will be other supernatural protection from God as well, but we are not given the details.
Revelation 12:14-16 talks about the attempts and failures.
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.
No, Matthew 24:15-31 is time of the end when Jesus returns.
Jesus saying pray that abomination of desolation is not setup in the winter, nor on the sabbath, nor when women are pregnant and nursing young infants - is Jesus saying individuals of that time - better hope that it doesn't happen in the winter, nor on the sabbath, nor when they are late term pregnant or nursing infants.
btw, I lived in Alaska for 20 years. So please don't lecture to me about snow and claiming that modern technology solves all the problems, saying that a person can just jump in their car and head out, regardless.
Last edited:
While I do grasp what you are saying here and can actually relate, there is still the chance that both of you are wrong, meaning Jesus wasn't meaning these things in the literal sense to begin with. And one way I can know, but maybe not you or someone else, is simple. The holy place meant is not meaning the 2nd temple before it was destroyed nor is it meaning a rebuilt one in the future. It is meaning the one pertaining to 2 Thessalonians 2:4. And since that is not involving a literal temple, it is then silly to take the fleeing in a literal sense allegedly taking place in the middle east if it is involving a temple that doesn't literally exist, meaning it's not a brick and mortar one that is regionally located somewhere on this planet..
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
This isn't a competition. We're just discussing scripture and sharing our interpretations. Just getting someone to understand my points feels like a win at this point. I get misunderstood often. Sometimes, it seems more like a case of people making things up that I supposedly said than a case of misunderstanding me. I would not include you in that group.
I don't understand reading why you would want to read it like that and think it can be understood when being read as it is without changing anything. As you can probably tell, I am pretty confident that my understanding of how antecedents work is correct, so with that being the case I see no need to change the order of the text at all.
Can you show me what text you consider to be 26a, 26b, 27a and 27b? I can make an educated guess, but I'd rather be sure. Then, I will know for sure what you are saying here. Until then I don't want to respond based on a faulty understanding of what you're saying.
Okay, so I think what you're saying here is that the one confirming the covenant is the Messiah and "the prince" referenced in verse 26 (26b) is related to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary as well as "for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.". That's reasonable. To me, it's all referring to the Messiah prince and not two different princes (rulers).
Agree, assuming you're saying that, in this scenario, regardless of whether "the prince that shall come" is a future Antichrist or Titus, it wouldn't change that the one confirming the covenant is the Messiah.
I explained why in detail. For the life of me I can't figure out why you don't understand why I oppose that even after I explained it multiple times. I don't oppose that your view agrees with mine, at least as it relates to Jesus being the Messiah confirming the new covenant, I just oppose changing the text of scripture. I realize you're only doing it to show how you understand it, so maybe I'm overreacting to that. I'm just always skeptical when someone tries to change the order of the text. That your change makes it agree partly with how I see it doesn't change how I feel about changing the order of the text. You changed it a different way in another post and it said something completely different than what I believe. So, my view is, why change it at all? It's unnecessary, in my opinion.
Now, after I have explained why I feel that way yet again, if you still can't figure out why I feel that way, then just never mind. I can't do anything more to make you understand why.
Yes, your approach is very different than mine and some others. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but obviously I think my approach is better than yours and you think yours is better than mine. So be it.
No, I don't intend for it to be that way. We can meet in the middle. That's fine It's difficult to follow your train of thought sometimes, but I can try.
I only said what I did based on my understanding of what you were saying. Misunderstandings happen on here constantly, especially when two people think as differently as we do at times. So, thank you for clarifying how you view scholars. I agree.
Great. I wasn't able to tell that from what you said there, but I really appreciate you clarifying that here.
Man, I wish you would have done this at the beginning of your post. Now, I'll have to go back and read it again to make sure my responses were according to what you were actually saying. For now, I'm just going to post what I have and I'll edit it later.
This illustrates another way in which we think differently. For whatever reason, you expect every detail to be included in the prophecy. I have no such expectation. I believe what happens in the 2nd half of the 70th week can be implied from my understanding of what happens in the first half based on my overall understanding of scripture.
It seems like your approach is to interpret the prophecy in isolation without taking all scripture into account. For me, I see no need for the prophecy to specify what happened after the Messiah was cut off for the rest of the 70th week. And I definitely see no basis whatsoever for adding a gap to the prophecy. I see no indication in the prophecy itself that there would be any gaps in it. Other prophecies that were related to a specific amount of time (like the 70 year Jewish captivity in Babylon) had no gaps in them, so why this one? I will never believe that there can be any gaps in the prophecy.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
LOL. Are you seriously comparing the winter weather in Jerusalem or Judea to Alaska? My point about it not making sense to have any concern about fleeing during the winter in the Jerusalem area is quite valid, but it's no surprise that you would just try to dismiss it instead of taking it into consideration. Comparing Jerusalem, where it rarely snows, to Alaska, where it often snows, is laughable at best.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
David, I can't take you seriously about this unless you can tell me why fleeing in the winter or on the sabbath would be difficult in a non-literal sense and why it would be difficult for pregnant women or nursing mothers to flee in a non-literal sense. And tell me what Judea and the mountains represent in a non-literal sense. I've tried to get you to explain that before and you weren't able to even offer a guess. Has that changed or is that still the case?
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Great story. A movie should be made about this. It's fascinating what people come up with when they interpret figurative text literally (as you do with taking the earth opening its mouth literally) and change things like a metaphorical flood into an earthquake. This is typical of pre-trib dispensationalists and those who have similar beliefs to them, like yourself. They often take figurative text literally and literal text figuratively.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
LOL. And how hard is it to drive there during the winter when it rarely even snows and, even if it did, there are these things called snow plows to take care of that. It doesn't even snow much at all in Jerusalem or Judea and he compared the weather there to Alaska. And actually expects people to take that seriously. People like him will go to any length to deny obvious things.Jesus said, "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter".
Does El Al Airlines have difficulty flying in the winter?
I was not equating Jerusalem/Judea to Alaska. I was informing you that I know about the difficulty in travel that there can be when it snows. And I am not saying that it snows in Jerusalem routinely, nor every winter, but there is a possibility could happen during a winter there.
If taking these things in the literal sense, well God is in control of when He wants someone to flee, obviously. And If He chooses the winter time to be when that occurs, why would Jesus then be saying, pray that your flight is not in the winter? How could praying change that fact one way or the other if God has already decided that when He wants these to start fleeing, the time He has prepared for this He has reserved for the winter? Or if God has already decided that when He wants them to flee, He has reserved this for summer not winter. Therefore, it would be pointless to pray one way or the other if God is in control of when He wants someone to flee. This assuming Jesus is meaning in the literal sense, whether that be in the Spring, Summer, Fall, or Winter, that He has reserved for when He wants them to flee.
Your interpretation implies, if taken in the literal sense, that God is not in control of when He wants someone to initially flee. That He doesn't already have a time reserved in advance for that.
Last edited:
I came across this idea about the fleeing and I can’t say I support it but maybe it might be useful for someone that wants to take the fleeing in a symbolic or figurative way.
The idea is that the Matthew 24 fleeing is describing Mary and Joseph’s fleeing and using it as an example or foreshadow.
Matthew 24:16 let them in Judea flee. Matthew 2:1 Jesus is born Bethlehem of Judea.
Matthew 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house. Matthew 2:13 the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise. Joseph could’ve been sleeping on the housetop when he had the angel appear to him in the dream.
Matthew 24: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. The word “his” can be either male or female. Matthew 2:13 and take the young child and his mother. Mary could’ve been gleaning in a field, with the baby Jesus being with either Joseph or Mary.
Matthew 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! Mary was no longer pregnant but had just recently given birth and was nursing when they fled to Egypt. And Egypt does have mountains where it’s possible they fled to.
Keraz
Well-Known Member
- Jun 20, 2018
- 5,330
- 951
- 113
- 82
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
What Jesus is talking about in Matthew 24:15-22, is the Great Tribulation of the 7 Trumpets and 7 Bowls. That time of distress will be cut short; to 1260 days, commencing with the Temple being desecrated and concluding with the 6th and 7th Bowl, Revelation 16:12-18 and the glorious Return, Rev 19:11-21
The Lords faithful Christian people do flee when the 'beast' takes over Jerusalem; they will be helped to fly to a place far away for those 1260 days. Revelation 12:6 & 14
There is another verse that mentions snow - winter time; Psalms 69:14. When the Almighty routs the kings in the [holy] land, snow will fall on Mount Zalmon.
I contend this Prophecy is for the Sixth Seal worldwide disaster. That fits the context.
The Lords faithful Christian people do flee when the 'beast' takes over Jerusalem; they will be helped to fly to a place far away for those 1260 days. Revelation 12:6 & 14
There is another verse that mentions snow - winter time; Psalms 69:14. When the Almighty routs the kings in the [holy] land, snow will fall on Mount Zalmon.
I contend this Prophecy is for the Sixth Seal worldwide disaster. That fits the context.
Last edited:
26a) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself
26b) 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.
27a) 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
27b) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Look what some interpretations are doing here. Instead of treating these as pairs, they have an odd man out instead.
Those that want the AC to be the one fulfilling 27a, they want that to involve 26b, 27a, and 27b, therefore, leaving nothing to pair with 26a, thus making 26a the odd man out. Why is there nothing to pair 26a with per this scenario?
The way I am reasoning this, there is no odd man out here. 26a can indeed be paired with something, 27a in this case. Logically then, that means 26b can be paired with something as well, 27b in this case. Now there is no odd man out. Now there is nothing that can't be paired with something. Which means 27a belongs with 26a, and 27b belongs with 26b, which means it is now undeniably crystal clear who the pronouns in 27a are referring to, and who the pronoun in 27b is referring to. But let's not think outside of the box, though. It is bad to do that not good.
26b) 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.
27a) 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
27b) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Look what some interpretations are doing here. Instead of treating these as pairs, they have an odd man out instead.
Those that want the AC to be the one fulfilling 27a, they want that to involve 26b, 27a, and 27b, therefore, leaving nothing to pair with 26a, thus making 26a the odd man out. Why is there nothing to pair 26a with per this scenario?
The way I am reasoning this, there is no odd man out here. 26a can indeed be paired with something, 27a in this case. Logically then, that means 26b can be paired with something as well, 27b in this case. Now there is no odd man out. Now there is nothing that can't be paired with something. Which means 27a belongs with 26a, and 27b belongs with 26b, which means it is now undeniably crystal clear who the pronouns in 27a are referring to, and who the pronoun in 27b is referring to. But let's not think outside of the box, though. It is bad to do that not good.
Last edited:
I OTOH see it making better sense that the 6th seal is not yet in view pertaining to Matthew 24:15-22, simply because Matthew 24:29 already tells us when the 6th seal is in view, it is immediately after great tribulation.
Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Compare with...
Revelation 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
As if it makes sense that this event, regardless what it looks like when fulfilled---the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven---that this happens more than one time rather than just one time. And not only that, a mere 3.5 years separates these events. If you are correct, 3.5 years earlier Revelation 6:12-13 is fulfilled, then 3.5 years later Matthew 24:29 is fulfilled. If you see that making sense, I don't what to tell you. I certainly don't see it making sense.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
A possibility. Do you really think that is what Jesus had in mind when He indicated that they should pray that they wouldn't have to flee during the winter? To avoid a small possibility that it would snow? Come on, Doug. Please be honest here. That can't be what Jesus was saying. So, tell me what else you think He could have meant by that if it applies to something in the future?
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I don't understand what you're saying here, David. Are our prayers in vain? Does God not answer prayer and always just does whatever He planned without ever doing anything in response to people's prayers? Is that what you're trying to say? That's how it comes across. If not, then please clarify what you're saying.
What gives you the idea that God had it planned for when His wrath would come and nothing could change that plan, including even changing it by a few months or something like that? Why did Jesus tell people to pray about that if it was already set in stone, as you seem to believe?
Are you saying that Jesus was telling people to pray for no reason? I don't understand at all what you're talking about.
You're making my brain melt here, David. Where do you come up with this stuff? Clearly, it wasn't set in stone as to when God's wrath would come exactly. Jesus made that clear by indicating that people could pray that it didn't happen in winter and didn't happen on the sabbath.
You know, sometimes I think you just try too hard. Things are far simpler than you make them out to be sometimes. I do not understand how you think at all sometimes. This is one of those times.
He clearly did mean it in the literal sense. If He meant it in any other sense I'm not seeing you or anyone else give any convincing evidence for that.
Yeah, so? And that means what exactly? Who cares? Why did God need to have the exact timing set in stone of when it would happen? He clearly didn't or else Jesus wouldn't have indicated that people could pray that it didn't happen in the winter or on the sabbath.
Unconventional perhaps, but with legitimate merit, because it arrives at the correct conclusion(s).
If Jesus did not mean His warnings to be taken literally, then the Judaean Christians did not understand Jesus, because they did take Him literally, and fled and survived; but instead they should have remained where they were, and been slaughtered in 70 AD.
Is that what God could have wanted?
Last edited:
Similar threads
