Daniels 70-Weeks Timeline

[Timtofly]

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

Because sin is still in creation.

 

[Enoch111]

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

This is correct. As long as there is sin on earth there cannot be "everlasting righteousness". And that is an integral part of this prophecy. Yet people will continue to delude themselves, and there is no point wasting time on this.

 

[covenantee]

This is correct. As long as there is sin on earth there cannot be "everlasting righteousness". And that is an integral part of this prophecy. Yet people will continue to delude themselves, and there is no point wasting time on this.

1 Corinthians 1:30
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

1 Peter 2:24
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

1 John 2:29
If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.


Lots of righteousness there.
If it's not everlasting righteousness, when did it end?
Do you think that Paul, Peter, and John were deluded?
Do you think that Paul, Peter, and John were wasting their time?

 

[Timtofly]

1 Corinthians 1:30
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

1 Peter 2:24
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

1 John 2:29
If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.


Lots of righteousness there.
If it's not everlasting righteousness, when did it end?
Do you think that Paul, Peter, and John were deluded?
Do you think that Paul, Peter, and John were wasting their time?

You really don't get what creation was like before Adam disobeyed God, do you?

A partial righteousness in symbolic form as earnest until the real deal, is not the real deal.

 

[covenantee]

You really don't get what creation was like before Adam disobeyed God, do you?

A partial righteousness in symbolic form as earnest until the real deal, is not the real deal.

You really don't get anything.

 

[Timtofly]

You really don't get anything.

Don't need counterfeit Gospel nor theology. You can keep it.

 

[Enoch111]

If it's not everlasting righteousness, when did it end?

You still don't get it and you are misquoting verses to prove that. "Everlasting righteousness" on earth means THE TOTAL ABSENCE of sin and evil on this planet. And that is a long way off. God did not intend to have a corrupted earth eternally. So He will bring an end to sin and evil on earth and then bring about everlasting righteousness.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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.

No I did that to teach you a rule of grammar. if the phrase "whose coming is after the working of Satan" was not included then the He would refer back to its nearest antecedent! but bvecause it is a modifier ( and modifiers can appear before or after the pronoun) it denotes a different person other than its nearest antecedent.

No charge for the grammar lesson.

And no Dan. ( is not Jesus confirming the new covenant. Jesus paid the price for the new covenant, but the new covenant is not in effect yet as it appears in Jer. 31:31-34.

and you should do a word study on confirm! You will find out it is not to establish, create, confirm, ratify or cause to be.

then do a Hebrew word study and find out what a verb on the Hiphil means and is in the sequential perfect! Maybe then you will be able to see.

And the He cannot be Jesus by any form or rule fo grammar. and as God created grammar so we can understand the spoken and written word, I do not know how you come to call the roman Prince whose people will destroy the sanctuary Jesus. Are you willing to admit that Jesus is the prince of the Nazis? of the communist russian and chinese? of Khmer Rouge? Of the pro abortion politicians? He is their immediate head? Even though the bible says for all the unsaved Jesus has no relationship at all with them.

 

[covenantee]

You still don't get it and you are misquoting verses to prove that. "Everlasting righteousness" on earth means THE TOTAL ABSENCE of sin and evil on this planet. And that is a long way off. God did not intend to have a corrupted earth eternally. So He will bring an end to sin and evil on earth and then bring about everlasting righteousness.

Try answering the questions.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is correct. As long as there is sin on earth there cannot be "everlasting righteousness". And that is an integral part of this prophecy. Yet people will continue to delude themselves, and there is no point wasting time on this.

So, I guess you believe that the 70th week will end 1000+ years after the return of Christ then. Because in your premil view sin is still occurring 1000+ years after the return of Christ.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No I did that to teach you a rule of grammar. if the phrase "whose coming is after the working of Satan" was not included then the He would refer back to its nearest antecedent! but bvecause it is a modifier ( and modifiers can appear before or after the pronoun) it denotes a different person other than its nearest antecedent.

No charge for the grammar lesson.

LOL. Who are you trying to kid? You are not fit to teach grammar. Period. Just accept it. I showed how you grammar rule fails in another passage and now you're desperately trying to deny it.

And no Dan. ( is not Jesus confirming the new covenant. Jesus paid the price for the new covenant, but the new covenant is not in effect yet as it appears in Jer. 31:31-34.

and you should do a word study on confirm! You will find out it is not to establish, create, confirm, ratify or cause to be.

I see that you are not good at understanding the meanings of words, either. Did you not take any English classes in school?

then do a Hebrew word study and find out what a verb on the Hiphil means and is in the sequential perfect! Maybe then you will be able to see.

LOL. You are acting as if you have any idea of what you're talking about when you clearly do not. You are not fooling anyone here.

Daniel 9:27 is about Jesus confirming the new covenant and you make it out to be about an Antichrist instead. Terrible.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Don't need counterfeit Gospel nor theology. You can keep it.

And you can keep your gibberish and incoherent nonsense.

 

[covenantee]

No I did that to teach you a rule of grammar. if the phrase "whose coming is after the working of Satan" was not included then the He would refer back to its nearest antecedent! but bvecause it is a modifier ( and modifiers can appear before or after the pronoun) it denotes a different person other than its nearest antecedent.

No charge for the grammar lesson.

And no Dan. ( is not Jesus confirming the new covenant. Jesus paid the price for the new covenant, but the new covenant is not in effect yet as it appears in Jer. 31:31-34.

and you should do a word study on confirm! You will find out it is not to establish, create, confirm, ratify or cause to be.

then do a Hebrew word study and find out what a verb on the Hiphil means and is in the sequential perfect! Maybe then you will be able to see.

And the He cannot be Jesus by any form or rule fo grammar. and as God created grammar so we can understand the spoken and written word, I do not know how you come to call the roman Prince whose people will destroy the sanctuary Jesus. Are you willing to admit that Jesus is the prince of the Nazis? of the communist russian and chinese? of Khmer Rouge? Of the pro abortion politicians? He is their immediate head? Even though the bible says for all the unsaved Jesus has no relationship at all with them.

You're plainly incapable of the most elementary learning.
I've previously explained Daniel's account in detail, yet you persist in misquoted arrogance and ignorance.
But that's df.
Arrogant and ignorant.
And proud of them.
It's furthermore obvious that you believe that God had nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem.
Understandably, df mourns the passing of the racist occult pharisaic talmudism in which it is itself grounded.
And we wouldn't expect anything otherwise from df.
Consistent arrogance and ignorance.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

LOL. Who are you trying to kid? You are not fit to teach grammar. Period. Just accept it. I showed how you grammar rule fails in another passage and now you're desperately trying to deny it.

I see that you are not good at understanding the meanings of words, either. Did you not take any English classes in school?

LOL. You are acting as if you have any idea of what you're talking about when you clearly do not. You are not fooling anyone here.

Daniel 9:27 is about Jesus confirming the new covenant and you make it out to be about an Antichrist instead. Terrible.

I shall from now on call you cleopatra. You truly are the queen of-denial.

This has ended Have the last word if you wish. MY wife is on vacation and became seriously ill so I am leaving to be with her.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You're plainly incapable of the most elementary learning.
I've previously explained Daniel's account in detail, yet you persist in misquoted arrogance and ignorance.
But that's df.
Arrogant and ignorant.
And proud of them.
It's furthermore obvious that you believe that God had nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem.
Understandably, df mourns the passing of the racist occult pharisaic talmudism in which it is itself grounded.
And we wouldn't expect anything otherwise from df.
Consistent arrogance and ignorance.

Well having several degrees, I think I am capable.

I follow Daniel as it was written grammatically and linguistically. Like we all do to every other piece of literature. I do realize covenant theology acolytes do not follow those rules when reading teh bible, I can't help that.

God is the ultimate for everything that happens- even evil! But the bible didn't attribute god for the exile into Egypt, teh attack of the Philistines, Accadians, amelekites, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Greeks, Romans etc. It always calls the human rulers who led the attacks, Just like here in Daniel.

Don't know what part of DF you are referring to, it certainly isn't in allmy studies of dispensational theology.

I am offline for a week. My wife has taken seriously ill on vacation with one of our daughters and granddaughter. I am flying to day to be with her and care for her.

 

[covenantee]

Well having several degrees, I think I am capable.

I follow Daniel as it was written grammatically and linguistically. Like we all do to every other piece of literature. I do realize covenant theology acolytes do not follow those rules when reading teh bible, I can't help that.

God is the ultimate for everything that happens- even evil! But the bible didn't attribute god for the exile into Egypt, teh attack of the Philistines, Accadians, amelekites, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Greeks, Romans etc. It always calls the human rulers who led the attacks, Just like here in Daniel.

Don't know what part of DF you are referring to, it certainly isn't in allmy studies of dispensational theology.

I am offline for a week. My wife has taken seriously ill on vacation with one of our daughters and granddaughter. I am flying to day to be with her and care for her.

Misquoting Daniel and substituting a different prince for the only prince in the passage, Messiah, does not "follow Daniel as it was written grammatically and linguistically."

Nahum 1
1 The burden of Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite.
Nahum 2
13 Behold, I am against thee, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will burn her chariots in the smoke, and the sword shall devour thy young lions: and I will cut off thy prey from the earth, and the voice of thy messengers shall no more be heard.
Nahum 3
5 Behold, I am against thee, saith the Lord of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame.
6 And I will cast abominable filth upon thee, and make thee vile, and will set thee as a gazingstock.

No human ruler mentioned.
Just like in Daniel.

My sympathies with you and your family.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well having several degrees, I think I am capable.

Having degrees does absolutely nothing to improve your spiritual discernment. Nothing at all.

I am offline for a week. My wife has taken seriously ill on vacation with one of our daughters and granddaughter. I am flying to day to be with her and care for her.

I'll pray for her and for you. I know what it's like to care for a wife with serious health issues.

 

[jeffweeder]

God did not intend to have a corrupted earth eternally. So He will bring an end to sin and evil on earth and then bring about everlasting righteousness.

In 70 weeks he will,

to finish the transgression,
to make an end of sin,
to make atonement for iniquity,
to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal up vision and prophecy
and to anoint the most holy place.

Messiah brings this about through the shedding of his blood . Did he not make atonement through his blood?
Without the shedding of blood there is no atonement.
So he must have did this in the 70th week.
If he did that in the 70th week then he logically did the rest of those points in the 70th week. 70 weeks for all of those point.
He ALONE PUT AN END TO TO SIN BY BEARING THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD.
HE IS OUR EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUS.
THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS IS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY
AND ONLY HE COULD ANOINT THE MOST HOLY PLACE.
Thats how this should be understood. Its all about him not us. It is for us.


Heb 9
11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.


but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Misquoting Daniel and substituting a different prince for the only prince in the passage, Messiah, does not "follow Daniel as it was written grammatically and linguistically."

Nahum 1
1 The burden of Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite.
Nahum 2
13 Behold, I am against thee, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will burn her chariots in the smoke, and the sword shall devour thy young lions: and I will cut off thy prey from the earth, and the voice of thy messengers shall no more be heard.
Nahum 3
5 Behold, I am against thee, saith the Lord of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame.
6 And I will cast abominable filth upon thee, and make thee vile, and will set thee as a gazingstock.

No human ruler mentioned.
Just like in Daniel.

My sympathies with you and your family.

Thank you for the sympathy. We are back home and my wife is recovered.

But saying there is only one prince is grammatically and linguistically correct just tells me you never bothered to check out the construction and rules of grammar.

As for Nahum of course only one person is mentioned. That is easy.

But Daniel Is much different. You want to spiritualize it to say Jesus is th eprince of the people that shall come and destroy the sanctuary. that is not how it was written nor understood! Even Josephus, th enon believer he was, recognized Titus fulfilled Daniel as far as the destruction of the city. YOu just cannot weave in and out of literal and allegorical in a passage because some one had that idea centuries ago. It leaves the reader dependnent of the mystic who knows the "deep things" written between the lines.

But to continue your instructions in the rules of proper understanding according to teh rules of grammar God created. The reason why the Nahum passages refer to Yahweh Sabaoth and no one else, is that teh fdirst person personal pronouns that fo0llow match the same case, number and gender as its nearest antecedent which is Yahweh
Saaoth!

Daniel is different.

25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

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

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Jesus is explicitly mentioned twice in this passage! Messiah the Prince and Messiah.
Next we have another prince- you assume IT MUST mean Messiah the Prince.

YOU go from a literal prince (Messiah the Prince) to an allegorical prince (Jesus is prince of the Roman people- actually He is king not prince)

So let us see what this prince of the people accomplishes:

1. He destroys the city and sanctuary. Jesus never led an army to do this.
2. Jesus did not make a 7 year covenant with Israel.
3. Jesus did not end the sacrifical system after 3 1/2 years. He ended its efficacy but not its prectice and the language here can only mean practice- unless you say God inspired one thing but meant another.
4. Jesus did not make the temple desolate
5. Jesus did not cause the overspreading of abominations in the temple. the temple was sacred- the practices of the people were corrupt but not the temple. Unless once again you wish to declare that God inspired one thing but meant another.

If He meant another then why is your reinterpretation of the words to be accepted more than many others who have reinterpreted this passage for their own agendas?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Having degrees does absolutely nothing to improve your spiritual discernment. Nothing at all.

I'll pray for her and for you. I know what it's like to care for a wife with serious health issues.

Thank YOu ! we Have returned home. Wife is fully recovered so I am grateful for your prayers.