Why are some interpreters not being honest with the text involving Daniel 9:27?

[Spiritual Israelite]

What a SILLY argument the above is!

It's SILLY to compare a prophecy without a set duration to Daniel 9:24-27 which did have a set duration as evidence that there can be a gap within a prophecy with a set duration. But, go ahead and continue making your SILLY argument if you insist.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

so do you believe messiah was cut off "AFTER the 69th week)

or in the middle of the 70th week?

Why does it have to be one or the other instead of both? What comes after 69? Obviously, 70. Does the text tell us how long after the 69th week that the Messiah would be cut off? No, it does not. Why do you act as if it does?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The gap is nbetween the end of the 69th week (messiah the prince enters jerusalem)

and a covenant confirmed by someone for 1 week (Daniels 70th week)

everything in between woud be part of the gap

You believe that Christ's death fulfilled at least one of the six things listed in Daniel 9:24 that were to be fulfilled within the 70 weeks, right? Such as making reconciliation for iniquity? I think you said before that you believed Jesus fulfilled that with His death. With that in mind, how can you not include His death somewhere within the 70 weeks (it has to be in the 70th week in particular since it says He would be cut off after the 69th week)?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That above is a distorting of the actual Bible Scripture which declares Jesus being "cut off" with the end of the 69th week.

Talk about distorting scripture. It absolutely does NOT say He would be cut off at the end of the 69th week. Why are you being so dishonest?

Daniel 9:26 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.

What translation of the Bible are you using that says "at the end of" in Daniel 9:26 instead of "after"? The word "after" means it would happen some time AFTER the 69th week ended without specifying how long afterwards it would occur. Regardless of how long afterwards it would be, you can't place His death within the 69th week including the very end of it. Because it was to occur AFTER that.

So just 'who'... would want to pass a false doctrine that blames Jesus with setting up the "abomination of desolation" when Jesus in His Olivet discourse instead was warning His servants about that abomination in a future Jewish stone temple in Jerusalem (Matthew 24:15)?

The FALSE JEWS of the "synagogue of Satan" of course are the ones trying to wrongly push Jesus' Ministry into the 70th week of Daniel 9:27.

It's amazing to me that you are accusing others of doing what you so clearly are doing yourself. You're changing the text to fit your view. Blatantly. What is wrong with you?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

After... DOES NOT MEAN the "threescore and two" weeks continued, silly!

What are you even saying here? Do you have any idea? Are you unable to communicate clearly? The text indicates that He would be cut off some time AFTER the first 69 weeks ended. Is there some reason why you are missing something so obvious?

All you are showing is your following a LIE instituted by false Jews of the "synagogue of Satan", trying to SLANDER Jesus Christ.

LOL. You are something else. Are you for real? Or just trying to put on a show and trying to be as ridiculous as possible? Jesus Christ is everything to me. I am nothing apart from Him. And you are accusing me of slandering Him? Judge not or you will be judged with the same measure you are judging me.

How? Because trying to push Jesus' Ministry into the 70th week when the 70th week events only involve the future coming ANTICHRIST is to try and claim Jesus is that Antichrist! So by you latching onto that false LIE by the false Jews, it mean you follow THEM IN THAT LIE TOO!

LOL. You try to push His death into the 69th week even though it very specifically indicates that His death would come AFTER the end of the 69th week. You are believing your own LIE.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You white-washed wall! You reject the proof of Daniel 9:26 which declares Messiah being "cut off" with the "threescore and two" weeks, and you FALSELY CLAIM I'm being dishonest??

May God rebuke you!

LOL. Look at Davy making a fool of himself. Show me where it "declares Messiah being "cut off" with the "threescore and two" weeks". What translation are you using, the Antichrist Translation?

Daniel 9:26 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.

The English word "after" there is translated from the Hebrew word 'aḥar which means "afterwards (of time)". So, it is used to describe something which occurs some time after something else has finished. The word does not indicate one way or another how long afterwards that thing would occur. Could be a short time or a long time. It is used to describe things that would happen shortly after and things that would happen long after in other verses. What the word doesn't mean is "at the end of". But, go ahead and dishonestly change the meaning of words if you are that desperate to keep your doctrine afloat. It's beyond me why you think being dishonest is okay.

 

[Davidpt]

so do you believe messiah was cut off "AFTER the 69th week)

or in the middle of the 70th week?

There are 69 weeks and a 70th week. In order to agree with verse 24, Christ has to be cut off during the 70 weeks. Lets say, for example, Christ is cut off during the 68th week, which of course isn't true, and that I am only using this to illustrate a point here. And that being this. That would agree with verse 24 since it has Christ doing this during the 70 weeks. Nowhere in verse 24 does it say He has to do these things in the 70th week. It says He has to do these things during the 70 weeks. We then deduce He does these things during the 70th week based on what is recorded in verse 26 and verse 27.

Unlike my example per the 68th week, after 69 weeks can't be during the 69 weeks, therefore it has to include the 70th week if when He is cut off is something that has to occur during the 70 weeks. IOW, how can after the 69 weeks be meaning during the 70 weeks the same way the 68th week per my example is meaning during the 70 weeks unless it includes the 70th week?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The scripture is very clear, the Jews are "Building" unto "Messiah" of the old testament that is "Jesus Christ" the Messiah that they rejected, it gives great detail that it will be a wall and street built

The Jews are looking for their future Messiah to come, and they will build unto him, yes they will be deceived into receiving the future "False messiah, aka the antichrist, man of sin, the beast

Daniel 9:25KJV
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.

You misunderstood what I was saying, which is no surprise. That text is saying 69 weeks would pass and that would lead to Messiah the Prince. What I'm saying is that it doesn't specify what "unto the Messiah the Prince" means exactly. Obviously, there is no consensus about what that phrase means.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Why does it have to be one or the other instead of both?

Because of the way it is written.

Saying he was cut off after is totally different than saying he will be cut off in the middle

What comes after 69? Obviously, 70. Does the text tell us how long after the 69th week that the Messiah would be cut off? No, it does not. Why do you act as if it does?

It says after 69 weeks. In Hebrew this is used to focus on something that comes pretty much right after.

I personally like to interpret as written, And not try to make it mean something it does not mean

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You believe that Christ's death fulfilled at least one of the six things listed in Daniel 9:24 that were to be fulfilled within the 70 weeks, right?

I believe the things that are said will happen happen IN the 70 week. Not within.

the 70th week will be fulfilled when all of them come to happen.

Such as making reconciliation for iniquity? I think you said before that you believed Jesus fulfilled that with His death. With that in mind, how can you not include His death somewhere within the 70 weeks (it has to be in the 70th week in particular since it says He would be cut off after the 69th week)?

I am not looking for 1 event, Prophecy shows we need to look for everything to be fulfilled. If they have not yet been fulfilled. then we can continue to look for it to be fulfilled.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

There are 69 weeks and a 70th week. In order to agree with verse 24, Christ has to be cut off during the 70 weeks. Lets say, for example, Christ is cut off during the 68th week, which of course isn't true, and that I am only using this to illustrate a point here. And that being this. That would agree with verse 24 since it has Christ doing this during the 70 weeks. Nowhere in verse 24 does it say He has to do these things in the 70th week. It says He has to do these things during the 70 weeks. We then deduce He does these things during the 70th week based on what is recorded in verse 26 and verse 27.

Unlike my example per the 68th week, after 69 weeks can't be during the 69 weeks, therefore it has to include the 70th week if when He is cut off is something that has to occur during the 70 weeks. IOW, how can after the 69 weeks be meaning during the 70 weeks the same way the 68th week per my example is meaning during the 70 weeks?

lol

If we did not have other prophecies which show a gap. I would possibly agree with you

But since not everything is fulfilled. We know the 70th week has not yet been completed..

 

[Davidpt]

lol

If we did not have other prophecies which show a gap. I would possibly agree with you

But since not everything is fulfilled. We know the 70th week has not yet been completed..

I already agree there is a gap in the 70 weeks. I tend to think it's likely after the middle of the 70th week rather than between the 69th and 70th week, for the reasons I have been arguing.

Correct me if I am wrong. Your view has at the end of the 69 weeks being palm Sunday, correct? That means Christ is cut off a week after the 69 weeks end, thus doesn't agree with verse 24 since it has Him being cut off, not during the 70 weeks, but outside of them during a gap where the 70 weeks are no longer being counted at this point. No way can a week after something ends mean that it happens before it ends. IOW, 69 weeks and one literal 7 days later does not equal 69 weeks, it equals 69 weeks plus one literal 7 days, thus these literal 7 days are outside of the 69 weeks, not during them. Only the 69 weeks and the 70th week are valid options pertaining to verse 24. Shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

And not only this, though I didn't initially realize it at the time, a starting date of 454 BC has apparently been debunked and that that decree was in 444/5 BC instead. How can you possibly think you have a position to argue if you don't even have a valid starting point to argue with?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because of the way it is written.

Saying he was cut off after is totally different than saying he will be cut off in the middle

How so? It does not say how long after the end of the 69th week that the Messiah would be cut off. So, why not 3.5 years after? Nothing in the text prevents that from being the case.

It says after 69 weeks. In Hebrew this is used to focus on something that comes pretty much right after.

This is false. The word itself does not imply one way or another how long after. It can be used to refer to something that happens shortly after or long after something else. You obviously made this up without even researching what the word means or else you would have provided example to back up your claim.

Genesis 30:19 Leah conceived again and bore Jacob a sixth son. 20 Then Leah said, “God has presented me with a precious gift. This time my husband will treat me with honor, because I have borne him six sons.” So she named him Zebulun. 21 Some time later ('aḥar) she gave birth to a daughter and named her Dinah.

Notice here that it talks about Leah giving birth to a sixth son that she had with Jacob. Then it says "Some time later ('aḥar) she gave birth to a daughter". So, it obviously had to be at least about 9 months later after Zebulun was born that Dinah was born. Unless, they were twins, but there is no indication of such. In Barnes notes on this verse he said "Dinah" is the only daughter of Jacob mentioned Genesis 46:7, and that on account of her subsequent connection with the history of Jacob Genesis 34. Issakar appears to have been born in the sixth year after Jacob's marriage, Zebulun in the seventh, and Dinah in the eighth.".

Since I wouldn't be surprised that you would try to argue that Dinah was Zebulun's twin, I will give another example where the Hebrew word is used and doesn't mean right after.

Leviticus 25:15 According to the number of years after ('aḥar) the jubile thou shalt buy of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee:

In this verse the word is used to refer to something that was to be done "years after the jubile". So, years after is obviously not right after.

I'll give one more example and that should suffice. The word is sometimes used to refer to someone being behind someone else or something like that and is not always used in relation to time. And most of the time when used in relation to time it doesn't specify how much time after or give any indication if it's a short or long time after.

Deuteronomy 31:29 For I know that after ('aḥar) my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands. 30 And Moses spake in the ears of all the congregation of Israel the words of this song, until they were ended.

Here, the word is used to refer to something that would happen some time after Moses's death. Not immediately or right after, but something that he knew would eventually happen some time after he died.

So, now that you know what the word actually means, will you take another look at Daniel 9:26 with that understanding?

I personally like to interpret as written, And not try to make it mean something it does not mean

In other words, you like to interpret everything as if everything is meant to be taken literally, so that no real thought or spiritual discernment is required. Just like Paul said we should do, right? Or not.

1 Corinthians 2:14 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

lol

If we did not have other prophecies which show a gap. I would possibly agree with you

There are no prophecies that are of a specified duration that have any gaps in them. Of course, any prophecies that are not of a specified duration can have gaps in them because they just talk about things that will happen without saying everything prophesied has to happen within a certain amount of time or all around the same time. That is irrelevant when it comes to Daniel 9:24-27.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I already agree there is a gap in the 70 weeks. I tend to think it's likely after the middle of the 70th week rather than between the 69th and 70th week, for the reasons I have been arguing.

Correct me if I am wrong. Your view has at the end of the 69 weeks being palm Sunday, correct? That means Christ is cut off a week after the 69 weeks end, thus doesn't agree with verse 24 since it has Him being cut off, not during the 70 weeks, but outside of them during a gap where the 70 weeks are no longer being counted at this point. No way can a week after something ends mean that it happens before it ends. IOW, 69 weeks and one literal 7 days later does not equal 69 weeks, it equals 69 weeks plus one literal 7 days, thus these literal 7 days are outside of the 69 weeks, not during them. Only the 69 weeks and the 70th week are valid options pertaining to verse 24. Shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Exactly. Yet, this person and a few others try to change the definition of the word "after" to "at the end of". A very dishonest tactic that they use to support their doctrine.

Another argument that was made is that "after" means shortly after. That's still after the 69th week is finished, so where does that place His death? Still in the 70th week. But, they don't want to acknowledge this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I believe the things that are said will happen happen IN the 70 week. Not within.

What difference does that make (in or within)? Are you purposely trying to avoid addressing my point? Do you believe that Christ's death relates to the fulfillment of at least one of the things listed in Daniel 9:24? I believe you have said before that His death is what fulfilled making reconciliation for iniquity. Is that correct? If so, then how can His death not fall within any of the 70 weeks when His death is crucial to the fulfillment of at least part of the 70 week prophecy?

 

[Davidpt]

This is false. The word itself does not imply one way or another how long after. You obviously made this up without even researching what the word means or else you would have provided example to back up your claim.

Genesis 30:19 Leah conceived again and bore Jacob a sixth son. 20 Then Leah said, “God has presented me with a precious gift. This time my husband will treat me with honor, because I have borne him six sons.” So she named him Zebulun. 21 Some time later ('aḥar) she gave birth to a daughter and named her Dinah.

Notice here that it talks about Leah giving birth to a sixth son that she had with Jacob. Then it says "Some time later ('aḥar) she gave birth to a daughter". So, it obviously had to be at least about 9 months later after Zebulun was born that Dinah was born. Unless, they were twins, but there is no indication of such. In Barnes notes on this verse he said "Dinah" is the only daughter of Jacob mentioned Genesis 46:7, and that on account of her subsequent connection with the history of Jacob Genesis 34. Issakar appears to have been born in the sixth year after Jacob's marriage, Zebulun in the seventh, and Dinah in the eighth.".

Since I wouldn't be surprised that you would try to argue that Dinah was Zebulun's twin, I will give another example where the Hebrew word is used and doesn't mean right after.

Leviticus 25:15 According to the number of years after ('aḥar) the jubile thou shalt buy of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee:

In this verse the word is used to refer to something that was to be done "years after the jubile". So, years after is obviously not right after.

I'll give one more example and that should suffice. The word is sometimes used to refer to someone being behind someone else or something like that and is not always used in relation to time. And most of the time when used in relation to time it doesn't specify how much time after or give any indication if it's a short or long time after.

Deuteronomy 31:29 For I know that after ('aḥar) my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands. 30 And Moses spake in the ears of all the congregation of Israel the words of this song, until they were ended.

Here, the word is used to refer to something that would happen some time after Moses's death. Not immediately or right after, but something that he knew would eventually happen some time after he died.

So, now that you know what the word actually means, will you take another look at Daniel 9:26 with that understanding?


In other words, you like to interpret everything as if everything is meant to be taken literally, so that no real thought or spiritual discernment is required. Just like Paul said we should do, right? Or not.

1 Corinthians 2:14 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

To show you are not being entirely realistic here even if you are correct that 'after' when it relates to time, if it is meaning 3.5 years later in this case, what about the following, for example?

Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:


Are you going to argue that after he begat Seth, that that very same day did not include any of these 800 years he lived? When should we start the coutdown for when these other 800 years initially begin? 5 years later? 10 years later? 100 years later? Of course not. Those 800 years begin immediately after Seth is born. Yet it appears you are arguing that 'achar can never mean that, that it always means much later after something had just happened.

Granted, 500 years after Seth is born, is much later, for example. But is the same day Seth is born also much later? After all, and even you wouldn't dispute this, as soon as Seth is born, thus after he is born, that is when these other 800 years initially begin. Unless you want to propose something preposterous, that the first cpl or so of years don't count.

Even if you are correct about 'after' in Daniel 9:26, be realistic at least and quit giving the impression 'achar can only be understood in one sense when it's pertaining to time, that being how you are applying it in Daniel 9:26.

And you oftentimes point out things that I have concluded that they make no sense. As if you have a whole lot of room to talk sometimes.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

To show you are not being entirely realistic here even if you are correct that 'after' when it relates to time, if it is meaning 3.5 years later in this case, what about the following, for example?

Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:


Are you going to argue that after he begat Seth, that that very same day did not include any of these 800 years he lived? When should we start the coutdown for when these other 800 years initially begin? 5 years later? 10 years later? 100 years later? Of course not. Those 800 years begin immediately after Seth is born. Yet it appears you are arguing that 'achar can never mean that, that it always means much later after something had just happened.

Granted, 500 years after Seth is born, is much later, for example. But is the same day Seth is born also much later? After all, and even you wouldn't dispute this, as soon as Seth is born, thus after he is born, that is when these other 800 years initially begin. Unless you want to propose something preposterous, that the first cpl or so of years don't count.

Even if you are correct about 'after' in Daniel 9:26, be realistic at least and quit giving the impression 'achar can only be understood in one sense when it's pertaining to time, that being how you are applying it in Daniel 9:26.

And you oftentimes point out things that I have concluded that they make no sense. As if you have a whole lot of room to talk sometimes.

You completely missed the point. Did I say at all that every time the word is used it's in reference to something that doesn't take place immediately or shortly after? No, I did not. So, why are you acting as if I said that? That was not my point.

At the beginning of my post I said "The word itself does not imply one way or another how long after". Yet, you're trying to tell me I said that it can't be used to refer to something happening immediately or shortly after something else? Come on, David. I was obviously saying it could be used to refer to something happening shortly after or something happening long after. The word itself does not indicate how long either way. It only means that something happens at least some amount of time after something else which could be a very short time or a long time.

My point is simply to show that it CAN be used to refer to something occurring not immediately or shortly after something that happened before it. But, the person I was responded to said that it always means shortly after. I proved them wrong which is all I was aiming to do rather than trying to say it instead always means more than shortly after or anything like that.

I just edited the post to make it even more clear that I was not saying that the word can't ever be used to describe something that happens shortly after something else.

 

[Truth7t7]

to seal up vision and prophecy

The vision and prophecy is sealed up and revealed at "The Time Of The End", 33AD nor 70AD was the time of the end

Daniel 12:4KJV
4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Below you see the time of the end, the future great tribulation, thebook of life is open in final judgement, and the resurrection of all has taken place

(The Future Great Tribulation)

Daniel 12:1-2KJV
1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

(The Future Great Tribulation)

Matthew 24:21KJ
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.

 

[Truth7t7]

You can't deal with the fact that the consummation was the end of Jerusalem, the sanctuary, and the nation of Israel in 70 AD.

The "Consummation" or "Ultimate End" in seen in 2 Peter 3:10-12 below, your false claim this ultimate end took place in 70AD is "Laughable"

You openly bend and twist scripture, trying desperately to use 70AD as fulfillment, your preterist claims are "False"

2 Peter 3:10-12KJ
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?