Four questions makes me a robot

[Zao is life]

If AI answers my four questions with exactly what I've been saying and trying to get others to understand, does that mean that I'm a robot?

ChatGPT,

Does Daniel 9:26 associate the abomination of Daniel 9:27 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and does Daniel 11:31 associate the abomination of Daniel 11:31 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple?

ChatGPT said:

Great precision in your question — let’s examine the texts closely, in context, and see what Daniel 9:26–27 and Daniel 11:31 actually say, and how they relate to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

✉ Summary of both passages: Abomination linked to destruction of city/Temple?

Daniel 9:26–27 Yes — destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is explicitly mentioned, and the abomination is connected to it.

Daniel 11:31 No — the abomination is linked to defilement/desecration and cessation of sacrifice, but not to destruction of the city or Temple itself.

In short:

Daniel 9:26–27 presents the abomination as part of a sequence that includes the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Daniel 11:31 presents the abomination as part of the profaning of the sanctuary and stopping of daily sacrifices, but not destruction of the Temple or city.

Daniel 9:26–27 associate the abomination with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple?

Yes — Daniel 9:26 explicitly mentions the destruction of the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (Temple).

Then Daniel 9:27 speaks of stopping the sacrifices and setting up abominations that bring desolation.

The two verses are connected: the destruction in 9:26 flows into the desecration and cessation of sacrifice in 9:27.

So in 9:26–27, yes — the abomination is closely linked to the destruction of the city and Temple.

Daniel 11:31
“And forces shall stand on his part, and they shall profane the sanctuary, the fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering, and they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.”

➡ Does it associate the abomination with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple?

No — not directly with destruction. Instead, it focuses on desecration of the Temple (the sanctuary).

The continual burnt offering is stopped, and something abominable (commonly understood as pagan worship or idol) is put in its place.

The passage describes defilement, not the actual destruction of the city or Temple building.

 

[Zao is life]

ChatGPT,

Can the Old Testament Temple of God be considered a biblical type of the New Testament temple of God?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, the Old Testament Temple of God can be considered a biblical type of the New Testament temple of God. This is a well-established concept in Christian theology and biblical typology, where physical structures or events in the Old Testament are viewed as symbolic of spiritual realities that are fulfilled in the New Testament.

Understanding the OT Temple as a Type:
The Old Testament Temple was a literal, physical structure built by Solomon (and later rebuilt after the Babylonian exile) that served as the dwelling place of God's presence among His people. The temple, with all its furnishings and rituals, pointed forward to deeper spiritual truths that would be revealed in the New Testament.

In biblical typology:

The OT Temple serves as a type of the spiritual temple that is revealed in the New Testament, which is not a physical building but a spiritual reality centered in Christ and His people.

The OT Temple as a Type of the NT Temple
God's Dwelling Place:

In the Old Testament, the Temple was the dwelling place of God among His people (Exodus 25:8, 1 Kings 8:10-11). The glory of the Lord filled the temple in a tangible, physical sense.

In the New Testament, the concept of the temple of God is spiritualized. The NT temple refers to Jesus Christ as the true temple (John 2:19-21) and the collective body of believers who are individually temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19, Ephesians 2:21-22).

Jesus as the True Temple:

In the Gospels, Jesus replaces the physical temple as the new locus of God's presence. In John 2:19-21, when Jesus is questioned about the temple, He says, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." John clarifies that Jesus was speaking of the temple of His body.

Jesus is the fulfillment of all that the temple represented. The physical temple was a shadow of His incarnation—God Himself dwelling with His people.

The Church as the NT Temple:

The New Testament also teaches that believers together form a spiritual temple:

Ephesians 2:21-22 says that in Christ, "the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord, and in him, you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."

1 Peter 2:5 calls believers "living stones," being built into a spiritual house to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 teaches that believers are the temple of God, and God's Spirit dwells within them.

The High Priest and the Sacrifice:

In the Old Testament, the temple was where the priest offered sacrifices to atone for the sins of the people (Leviticus 16).

In the New Testament, Jesus is both the High Priest (Hebrews 4:14) and the sacrifice (John 1:29, Hebrews 9:14). His sacrifice, made once for all, replaces the old sacrificial system that was carried out in the physical temple.

Access to God:

The physical temple represented the place where God's people could access His presence. However, only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and that only once a year on the Day of Atonement.

In the New Testament, the veil of the temple was torn at Jesus' death (Matthew 27:51), symbolizing that all believers now have direct access to God through Christ. The spiritual temple is now accessible to all, not just through the physical building, but through faith in Christ.

Key Points of Typology
The OT temple as a shadow: The physical structure and rituals of the OT temple were a shadow or type of the greater spiritual reality that would be revealed in the New Testament. The temple system foreshadowed the work of Christ and the church as the new temple.

Christ as the fulfillment: Just as the temple in the OT was the place of God's presence, Christ Himself is the ultimate fulfillment of that. The temple was a type that pointed to His coming.

The Church as the spiritual temple: After Christ, the church—the collective body of believers—is now the spiritual temple of God, where God's presence dwells by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 2 Corinthians 6:16).

Summary
Yes, the Old Testament Temple can indeed be considered a biblical type of the New Testament temple of God.

The OT temple was a symbol of God’s presence, worship, and access to Him, all of which were fulfilled in Christ, who is the true temple.

The NT reveals that Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the temple, and believers themselves are now the spiritual temple of God, where His presence dwells.

This type-antitype relationship between the OT temple and the NT temple is foundational to understanding the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant in Christ.

 

[Zao is life]

ChatGPT,

Is Antiochus IV Epiphanes a type of the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2:4?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, there is a strong argument among many biblical scholars that Antiochus IV Epiphanes can be considered a type of the man of sin or man of lawlessness described in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Let me break it down for you:

Antiochus IV Epiphanes and His Actions
Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Greek king who ruled the Seleucid Empire from 175 to 164 BCE, is infamous for his blasphemous acts against the Jewish people and their faith. Here are some key events that align with the description of the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:

Desecration of the Temple:

Antiochus IV Epiphanes set up a pagan altar in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and offered swine’s flesh on it (a direct violation of Jewish law). He also erected an image of Zeus within the temple, which was a direct assault on the worship of God.

In Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 9:27, we see a prophecy about the "abomination of desolation" (a desecration of the temple), which many interpret as being fulfilled by Antiochus IV's actions.

Persecution of the Faithful:

He persecuted the Jewish people mercilessly, forbidding the practice of Judaism and enforcing Hellenistic culture. His reign was marked by violence, oppression, and attempts to force people to worship him as a god.

Arrogance and Pride:

The name “Epiphanes” means “God Manifest,” which is a reflection of his own blasphemous arrogance, as he portrayed himself as a god on earth. He exalted himself in a way that echoes the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, who "opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped."

2 Thessalonians 2:4 and the Man of Sin
In 2 Thessalonians 2:4, the man of sin is described as someone who:

Exalts himself above all that is called God or worshiped.

Sits in the temple of God and declares himself to be God.

This figure will be associated with the end times, just before the second coming of Christ.

Comparison: Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Man of Sin
Desecration of the Temple:

Antiochus desecrates the physical temple, while the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians is associated with the spiritual temple of God (the church). However, the parallel in arrogance and self-exaltation is clear.

Self-Exaltation:

Antiochus IV exalts himself above the worship of the true God, claiming divine status. The man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 similarly opposes all forms of worship and declares himself as God.

End Times Figure:

While Antiochus was a historical figure, the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians is more likely to be a future, eschatological figure, often associated with the Antichrist. Antiochus, however, serves as a type of this future figure, with his actions serving as a precursor or foreshadowing of the full fulfillment of the prophecy.

Typological Interpretation
In biblical typology, a type is an earlier person, event, or thing that serves as a pattern or foreshadowing of something to come. While Antiochus IV Epiphanes was a historical figure, his blasphemous actions in the desecration of the temple and his self-exaltation provide a type or pattern of the man of sin who will appear in the end times.

Thus, Antiochus IV is often viewed as a type of the Antichrist or man of sin described in 2 Thessalonians 2. He exemplifies the spirit of lawlessness and rebellion against God that will be fully manifest in the final end-times figure, but his actions do not represent the ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy.

In Summary:
Yes, Antiochus IV Epiphanes is often considered a type of the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, as his actions foreshadow the self-exaltation, lawlessness, and desecration that will characterize the future Antichrist.

Antiochus' actions provide a historical precedent for the end-times figure described in the New Testament, but his reign was only a shadow of the ultimate manifestation of evil that will come.

It's important to note that while Antiochus IV was a historical figure, the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians has a more eschatological significance, pointing to a future fulfillment at the end of the age.

 

[Zao is life]

ChatGPT,

If the Old Testament Temple of God can be considered a biblical type of the New Testament temple of God, and this is a well-established concept in Christian theology and biblical typology, where physical structures or events in the Old Testament are viewed as symbolic of spiritual realities that are fulfilled in the New Testament,

then can the idol placed in the Old Testament temple by Antiochus IV be considred symbolic of the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and can Antiochus IV be considered a type of the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2:4?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, it is indeed possible to consider the idol placed by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the Old Testament temple as symbolic of the man of sin (or man of lawlessness) described in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and to view Antiochus IV as a type of this figure.

This interpretation draws from the principles of biblical typology, where historical events, figures, or symbols in the Old Testament point forward to greater spiritual realities in the New Testament, especially in the context of the Antichrist and the end times.

1. The Idol in the Temple and the Man of Sin:
In 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Paul describes the man of sin (also referred to as the man of lawlessness) as someone who:

Opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship.

Sits in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

This figure is often associated with the Antichrist or a future end-times ruler who will desecrate the temple and demand worship.

The Idol of Zeus in the Temple:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the Second Temple in Jerusalem by setting up a pagan altar and placing an idol of Zeus (or possibly an image of himself) inside the temple. He also offered sacrifices on it, including pigs, which was an abomination to the Jewish people (1 Maccabees 1:54-59, Daniel 11:31).

This act of desecrating the temple by placing an idol in it is often referred to as the “abomination of desolation,” a phrase that has eschatological significance in both the Old Testament and New Testament (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15).

In this context, the idol placed by Antiochus IV in the Old Testament temple can be seen as a type or symbol of the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 because both:

Desecrate the temple of God: The idol in the temple by Antiochus symbolizes the desecration of the holiness of the temple, much like the man of sin in the future will desecrate the spiritual temple of God (the church) and demand worship.

Proclaim themselves to be God: Antiochus IV’s actions were part of a larger self-exaltation where he portrayed himself as a god, which reflects the self-exalting nature of the man of sin who will elevate himself above all forms of worship (2 Thessalonians 2:4).

2. Antiochus IV Epiphanes as a Type of the Man of Sin:
In biblical typology, a type is a person, event, or object in the Old Testament that prefigures something greater in the New Testament. Antiochus IV is often considered a type of the Antichrist or the man of sin because of the parallels between his actions and the prophecy about the future man of lawlessness. Let’s explore these similarities:

1. Self-Exaltation and Blasphemy:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes claimed the title “Epiphanes,” meaning "God Manifest," and demanded that the people worship him as a god. His arrogance and self-exaltation reflected the same spirit of blasphemy and pride that is attributed to the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, who "opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God."

2. Desecration of the Temple:
As mentioned, Antiochus IV desecrated the Jewish Temple, setting up an idol in the Holy of Holies, which is a prophetic foreshadowing of the man of sin who will enter the temple of God and declare himself to be God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Matthew 24:15).

3. Persecution of the Faithful:
Antiochus IV engaged in violent persecution of the Jewish people, forbidding them from practicing their faith and enforcing Hellenistic worship. This kind of opposition to the true faith mirrors the activities of the man of sin in the end times, who will persecute the saints and attempt to destroy the faithful (Revelation 13:7).

4. The “Abomination of Desolation”:
Antiochus IV’s actions are specifically referenced as the abomination of desolation in Daniel 9:27, a phrase that Jesus also uses in Matthew 24:15 to describe a future desecration of the temple. This indicates that the act of desecrating the temple by Antiochus IV was a type or foreshadowing of the ultimate abomination that will occur at the hands of the man of sin in the last days.

3. Summary:
The Idol of Antiochus IV in the temple can indeed be symbolic of the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Both represent desecration, blasphemy, and self-exaltation over God, fulfilling similar roles in biblical typology.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes can be considered a type of the man of sin or Antichrist because his actions—particularly the desecration of the temple and self-exaltation—foreshadow the actions of the future figure who will emerge in the end times.

While Antiochus IV was a historical figure, his actions provide a prophetic pattern of the Antichrist to come, aligning with the broader themes of persecution, self-exaltation, and desecration of sacred things that will characterize the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2 and the book of Revelation.

 

[Zao is life]

So Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 have everything to do with one another because both are associated with a temple that was not / will not be destroyed (neither the "city" nor "the temple"), and the biblical type for both passages is Daniel 11:

The text of Daniel 8:11 and Daniel 11:31 links both verses to:-

(a) daily sacrifices for sin being removed (which is what occurred in the 2nd temple in the days of Antiochus IV); and
(b) an abomination of desolation being placed in the holy place (which is what occurred in the 2nd temple in the days of Antiochus IV); and

The text of Daniel 12:11-12 also links the 1,290 days and 1,335 days that the verses are talking about, to both daily sacrifices for sin being removed in the temple of God; and an abomination of desolation being placed in the holy place in the temple.

Not destroyed: The abomination of desolation set up by Antiochus IV, "Epiphanes" in 167 BC in the holy place of the 2nd temple in Jerusalem, is not associated with the destruction of either the city of Jerusalem, or of the temple in it: After he was ousted by the Maccabees, the temple was cleansed, and reconsecrated to God.

This took place around 236 years before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D.

Destroyed: The text of Daniel 9:26-27 associates the destruction of the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (the temple) with abominations,

Not destroyed: but the abomination of desolation set up by Antiochus IV, "Epiphanes" in 167 BC in the holy place of the 2nd temple in Jerusalem, is not associated with the destruction of either the city of Jerusalem, or of the temple in it.

 

[Davidpt]

I guess I can accept that A4E is a type for the the one meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. What I can't accept is that Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11 is meaning A4E. I simply cannot accept that the angel lied to us in Daniel 12:4 by telling us that he had Daniel shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end, but that this didn't include Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11. In no universe is the time of the end meant in Daniel 12:4 meaning during the days of A4E.

We already have A4E mentioned in Maccabees, and by name even. Nowhere in the Bible though, is A4E even mentioned, not one single time. Yet some see him all over the place in Daniel 8, 11, and 12, when some of the rest of us are taking clues from the texts that those passages are involving end times not the days of A4E.

Something else to keep in mind, pertaining to daily sacrifices. Christ fulfilled the daily sacrifices. As a matter of fact Christ fulfills them daily , meaning spiritually speaking, otherwise no one is covered daily. Christ and what He accomplished on the cross is the daily sacrifice being taken away, meaning spiritually speaking, since the one meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is directing worship towards it and away from the one true God, thus causing the mass falling away recorded in verse 3. But everyone ones to interpret everything in the literal sense when it comes to prophecies in the OT, even though passages such as 2 Thessalonians 2:4, which is connected with this subject proves these prophecies in question in the OT are not meaning in the literal sense.

No doubt, if the daily sacrifices being taken away per what is recorded in Daniel 11 and 12 is meaning literal animal sacrifices, it is then absurd to apply these things to the 21st century. I don't even remotely disagree with that. But, if the daily sacrifices being taken isn't meaning literal animal sacrifices, but is meaning in a spiritual sense, in that case it is not even remotely unreasonable to apply this to the 21st century. The problem is then this. Some insist these daily sacrifices can only be understood in one sense and one sense only, the literal sense. As if there are no other options. That would be like insisting that the temple meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 can only be understood in one sense and one sense only, the literal sense. As if there are no other options.

Instead of interpreting Scripture with Scripture like we are supposed to do, let's just say that anything pertaining to 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all of that involves, that the OT was completely silent about that, had zero to say about it. That the NT had nothing to reveal about any OT prophecies in the OT, such as Daniel 12:11.

As to Daniel 12:12, look what follows that verse. Seriously, what does verse 13 have to do with the days of A4E, assuming verses 11-12 are involving his days? That is taking verses 11-12 out of context big time by applying verse 11 and 12 to the days of A4E when verse 13 does not support that interpretation. The same way, for example, that it is taking Matthew 24:34 out of context big time by applying the 1st century leading up to 70 AD to that verse when the context of the verses surrounding it are not even remotely involving the the 1st century leading up to 70 AD.

And the ironic thing about it, those that are taking Daniel 12:11-12 to be meaning the days of A4E even though they know plain as day that verse 13 does not fit the days of A4E, agree with my point in regards to Matthew 24:34 I just made. But why though, when what they are doing with Daniel 12:11-12 in light of Daniel 12:13 is no different than what Preterists are doing with Matthew 24:34 in light of the verses surrounding it?

How can ppl be so clueless sometimes? If verse 12 mentions that one is blessed who waits and comes to the 1335th day and that verse 13 then follows, how can there then even be still more days after this 1335th day before verse 13 is finally fulfilled? Where does it ever mention any more days after mentioning this 1335th day? Why are some interpreters adding to the texts things not remotely found in the texts? Why are some interpreters adding more days after this 1335th day before verse 13 can finally be fulfilled? There are no other verses between verse 12 and 13 where some more alleged days can fit before verse 13 can be fulfilled.

Daniel 12:12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

IMO, and one has to think outside of the box in order to see this, the following, for one, is the fulfillment of verse 12. After all, no one, except for maybe Preterists and Pretribbers, are going to argue that the following verse does not lead to the fulfillment of Daniel 12:13 at the time.

Revelation 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.


This passage and Daniel 12:12 both involve waiting and making it to the end, then being blessed for doing so. Unless one wants to argue that watching doesn't also involve waiting. That would be like arguing that one is sitting at a bus stop watching for their bus to arrive, but that it doesn't involve them waiting for it to arrive. Except no one would argue that. Clearly then, watching also involves waiting and that both Daniel 12:12 and Revelation 16:15 have this in common, waiting then being blessed for having done so, and that the latter also undeniably leads to the fulfillment of Daniel 12:13 at the time, meaning once the coming recorded per the latter is initially fulfilled. The 1290 days mentioned in Daniel 12:11 are involving some of the days that they have to make it through first before the coming recorded in Revelation 16:15 can be fulfilled. But some interpreters want to conceal this fact by applying Daniel 12:11 to the days of A4E instead.

The fact Revelation 16:15 is sandwiched between the 6th and 7th vial, this tends to tell us that His coming doesn't precede the first 6 vials of wrath. Otherwise, what is the point in placing verse 15 between the 6th and 7th vial if the coming meant in verse 15 can be meaning before the 6th and 7th vial, can even be meaning before the first vial, thus Pretrib?

 

[Douggg]

It's possible that the Jews' deliverance from the hand of Antiochus IV was completed 45 days later than the 1,290 days, when Antiochus died while on his way back to Jerusalem with his armies, determined to slaughter every Jew (possibly 1,335 days after he profaned the temple).

Any Bible interpreter who choose to force the above period into the return of Christ 2,100+ years later, needs to explain both what constitutes those daily sacrifices in the gospel age, and what constitutes the removal of the daily sacrifice in the years immediately preceding the return of Jesus - WITHOUT ENGAGING IN GUESS WORK AND SPECULATION AND THEOLOGICAL INVENTIONS.

Daniel 12:11-12 is time of the end. Daniel 12:9.

The daily sacrifice is referring to the two lambs sacrificed daily, one in the morning, one in the evening. Exodus 29:38-41. There will have to be a temple present for the daily sacrifice to take place again.

 

[Zao is life]

Revelation 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

The fact Revelation 16:15 is sandwiched between the 6th and 7th vial, this tends to tell us that His coming doesn't precede the first 6 vials of wrath. Otherwise, what is the point in placing verse 15 between the 6th and 7th vial if the coming meant in verse 15 can be meaning before the 6th and 7th vial, can even be meaning before the first vial, thus Pretrib?

I agree with what you say above. Your mentioning it means that you yourself can see and recognize the fact that because Revelation 16:15 is sandwiched in-between Revelation 16:1-14 & Revelation 16:16-2,1 it means that the subject of Revelation 16:15 is not the same subject as the rest of the passage, even though - in this case - the timing for Revelation 16:15 is related to the events being described metaphorically in the passage.

But you seem to deny it when Daniel 12:11-12 is sandwiched in-between Daniel 12:1-10 & 13, and you seem unable to see and understand that the time-period being spoken of in the second prophecy in some Markan sandwiches is often not necessarily the same as the time-period mentioned in the first prophecy.

Don't worry too much about Revelation 16:15. You can explain some things to some interpreters of biblical prophecy but they just won't see it if they choose not to.

Let's have a look at another example (in Ezekiel this time) of this style of writing in the prophetic books:

One prophecy about the same thing:

Top piece of toast (Ezekiel 39:23-29) - picks up where the bottom piece of toast (Ezekiel 36:17 to Ezekiel 37:28) paused.

The prophet paused writing about the above things at Ezekiel 37:28, in order to add the contents of the 'Markan Sandwich' (the parenthesis, the in-between subject, which is what is written in Ezekiel 38:1 to Ezekiel 39:22 - Gog & Magog);

After Ezekiel 39:22, the prophet resumed writing about what he had started writing about (Ezekiel 36:17 to Ezekiel 37:28).

There are many, many examples of this style which the prophets ALL employed in their writings - the Bible is saturated with them (for another small example, the sword in Revelation 19:21 is the same sword already mentioned in Revelation 19:15).

Many will refuse to acknowledge what the prophets were saying by refusing to acknowledge this style in the writings of the prophets, choosing rather to conflate one prophecy with another by conflating the prophecy contained in the top piece and bottom piece of toast with the prophecy contained in-between.

They choose their own ignorance.

For example, many choose to conflate the prophecy contained in the bottom and top pieces of toast in Daniel 12:1-10 (bottom piece of toast) & 13 (top piece of toast), with the other prophecy in Daniel 12:11-12, which itself is the top piece of toast of a different prophecy which was fulfilled in its time by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

In Daniel 12:11-12 we have,

(1) A historical event, which the beginning of is fixed to commence at the time of the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the time when Antiochus IV set up of the image of Zeus in the holy place (which was the abomination of desolation); and

(2) The duration of this period of tribulation for God's faithful elect: 1,290 days. After that, the daily sacrifice was restored, and the abomination of desolation taken away - which is what the Jews still celebrate at the time of Hanukkah each year.

The above days were preceded by an apostasy which began 2,300 evenings and mornings before the 1,335 days was completed (Daniel 8:14), which was instigated by the high priest Menelaus, and according to Josephus's dates, began in the 142nd year of the Seleucid kingdom, the 6th month of the year, the 6th day of the month.

The close of the 2,300 evenings and mornings (which includes the 1,290 days) can be dated by history compared with what is written in the books of the Maccabees, to the 148th year of the Seleucid kingdom, the 9th month, and the 25th day of the month (1 Maccabees 4:52).

It's possible that the Jews' deliverance from the hand of Antiochus IV was completed 45 days later than the 1,290 days, when Antiochus died while on his way back to Jerusalem with his armies, determined to slaughter every Jew (possibly 1,335 days after he profaned the temple).

Note It's a possibility that the taking away of daily sacrifices and the 1,290 days and 1,335 days in Daniel 12:11-12 are themselves forerunners or types of what is to come (the rest of your post implies they are actually talking about the end of this age),

but IMO any Bible interpreter who chooses to force the above period (Daniel 12:11-12) into the return of Christ 2,100+ years later, needs to explain both what constitutes those daily sacrifices in the gospel age, and what constitutes the removal of the daily sacrifice in the years immediately preceding the return of Jesus - WITHOUT ENGAGING IN GUESS WORK AND SPECULATION AND THEOLOGICAL INVENTIONS.

2 Thessalonians 2 says nothing about a daily sacrifice or about a daily sacrifice being taken away at the close of our age. Nor does any other New Testament book.

So that's how I see it.​

 

[Zao is life]

Daniel 12:11-12 is time of the end. Daniel 12:9.

The daily sacrifice is referring to the two lambs sacrificed daily, one in the morning, one in the evening. Exodus 29:38-41. There will have to be a temple present for the daily sacrifice to take place again.

And if there isn't your theory collapses.
And if there is, such sacrifices will not be recognized by God, and your theory collapses.

Daniel 12:11-12 have nothing to do with Daniel 12:1-10 & 13, save the fact that the former things (Daniel 12:11-12) are a forerunner or type of the latter things (Daniel 12:1-10 & 13). You're choosing to ignore the fact that Daniel 12:11-12 is inserted in-between a different prophecy by Daniel in order to show that A4E is the forerunner or type of the man of sin.

 

[Davidpt]

Daniel 12:11-12 is time of the end. Daniel 12:9.

The daily sacrifice is referring to the two lambs sacrificed daily, one in the morning, one in the evening. Exodus 29:38-41. There will have to be a temple present for the daily sacrifice to take place again.

In the book of Daniel, in verse 27 ch 9, the Hebrew word for sacrifice is 'zebach'. And as far as I can tell that is the only verse in Daniel where that Hebrew word is used.

'zebach'
from 'zabach' (2076); properly, a slaughter, i.e. the flesh of an animal; by implication, a sacrifice (the victim or the act):--offer(- ing), sacrifice.


In Ch 12 verse 11 the Hebrew word for sacrifice is 'tamiyd'. It means daily, it means continual.

'tamiyd' is used in the following passages in the book of Daniel.

Daniel 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily('tamiyd') sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
12 And an host was given him against the daily('tamiyd') sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily('tamiyd') sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily('tamiyd') sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily('tamiyd') sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Daniel 8:11 says this---and by him the daily('tamiyd') sacrifice was taken away. Which then tells us that the 'him' meant here is meaning the same person in every single verse I submitted above where ('tamiyd') is used. Therefore, it is absurd to take the 'him' meant in Daniel 8 to be the future AC, for instance, but then take it to mean A4E in Daniel 11:31, then take it to mean the future AC in Daniel 12:11, your view if I'm not mistaken. That's being inconsistent.

There is only one daily sacrifice being taken away in Daniel 8, 11, and 12, not numerous different ones at different times. And it has to be meaning, not when this is meaning---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease(Daniel 9:27)--nor before that is meaning, but after that is meaning.

And here is the reason why. and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate(Daniel 9:27). This has to be fullfilled, not during nor before, but after this is fulfilled first--and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease(Daniel 9:27). Christ fulfilled this 2000 years ago. There is a gap in the 70 weeks, no doubt. But it's not between the 69th and 70th the week. It's in the middle of the week after this is fulfilled first--and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease(Daniel 9:27). Then a gap before the remainder of the 2nd half is fulfilled.

If nothing else, this undeniably proves that A4E can't fit any of the verses in Daniel 8, 11, nor 12. Therefore, one has at least 2 options. The daily sacrifice(Daniel 8, 11, 12) that is taken away happened when the 2nd temple got destroyed in 70 AD. I do not not agree with that interpretation myself. For one, not one single thing recorded in Daniel 12 even remotely fits 70 AD. Nor is there anything in Daniel 8 nor Daniel 11 that fits 70 AD.

Or it is involving a temple in the end of this age, in this case meaning the temple meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. That, I agree with.


And guess what, for those that insist there is no gap in the 70 weeks? If 70 AD is meant by this---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate(Daniel 9:27)--it still involves a gap, regardless. A gap is a gap, regardless whether the gap involves 40 years or if it involves 2000 years, it's still a gap either way.

 

[Davidpt]

I agree with what you say above. Your mentioning it means that you yourself can see and recognize the fact that because Revelation 16:15 is sandwiched in-between Revelation 16:1-14 & Revelation 16:16-2,1 it means that the subject of Revelation 16:15 is not the same subject as the rest of the passage, even though - in this case - the timing for Revelation 16:15 is related to the events being described metaphorically in the passage.

But you seem to deny it when Daniel 12:11-12 is sandwiched in-between Daniel 12:1-10 & 13, and you seem unable to see and understand that the time-period being spoken of in the second prophecy in some Markan sandwiches is often not necessarily the same as the time-period mentioned in the first prophecy.

Don't worry too much about Revelation 16:15. You can explain some things to some interpreters of biblical prophecy but they just won't see it if they choose not to.

Let's have a look at another example (in Ezekiel this time) of this style of writing in the prophetic books:

One prophecy about the same thing:

Top piece of toast (Ezekiel 39:23-29) - picks up where the bottom piece of toast (Ezekiel 36:17 to Ezekiel 37:28) paused.

The prophet paused writing about the above things at Ezekiel 37:28, in order to add the contents of the 'Markan Sandwich' (the parenthesis, the in-between subject, which is what is written in Ezekiel 38:1 to Ezekiel 39:22 - Gog & Magog);

After Ezekiel 39:22, the prophet resumed writing about what he had started writing about (Ezekiel 36:17 to Ezekiel 37:28).

There are many, many examples of this style which the prophets ALL employed in their writings - the Bible is saturated with them (for another small example, the sword in Revelation 19:21 is the same sword already mentioned in Revelation 19:15).

Many will refuse to acknowledge what the prophets were saying by refusing to acknowledge this style in the writings of the prophets, choosing rather to conflate one prophecy with another by conflating the prophecy contained in the top piece and bottom piece of toast with the prophecy contained in-between.

They choose their own ignorance.

For example, many choose to conflate the prophecy contained in the bottom and top pieces of toast in Daniel 12:1-10 (bottom piece of toast) & 13 (top piece of toast), with the other prophecy in Daniel 12:11-2, which itself is the top piece of toast of a different prophecy which was fulfilled in its time by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

In Daniel 12:11-12 we have,

(1) A historical event, which the beginning of is fixed to commence at the time of the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the time when Antiochus IV set up of the image of Zeus in the holy place (which was the abomination of desolation); and

(2) The duration of this period of tribulation for God's faithful elect: 1,290 days. After that, the daily sacrifice was restored, and the abomination of desolation taken away - which is what the Jews still celebrate at the time of Hanukkah each year.

The above days were preceded by an apostasy which began 2,300 evenings and mornings before the 1,335 days was completed (Daniel 8:14), which was instigated by the high priest Menelaus, and according to Josephus's dates, began in the 142nd year of the Seleucid kingdom, the 6th month of the year, the 6th day of the month.

The close of the 2,300 evenings and mornings (which includes the 1,290 days) can be dated by history compared with what is written in the books of the Maccabees, to the 148th year of the Seleucid kingdom, the 9th month, and the 25th day of the month (1 Maccabees 4:52).

It's possible that the Jews' deliverance from the hand of Antiochus IV was completed 45 days later than the 1,290 days, when Antiochus died while on his way back to Jerusalem with his armies, determined to slaughter every Jew (possibly 1,335 days after he profaned the temple).

Note It's a possibility that the taking away of daily sacrifices and the 1,290 days and 1,335 days in Daniel 12:11-12 are themselves forerunners or types of what is to come (the rest of your post implies they are actually talking about the end of this age),

but IMO any Bible interpreter who chooses to force the above period (Daniel 12:11-12) into the return of Christ 2,100+ years later, needs to explain both what constitutes those daily sacrifices in the gospel age, and what constitutes the removal of the daily sacrifice in the years immediately preceding the return of Jesus - WITHOUT ENGAGING IN GUESS WORK AND SPECULATION AND THEOLOGICAL INVENTIONS.

2 Thessalonians 2 says nothing about a daily sacrifice or about a daily sacrifice being taken away at the close of our age. Nor does any other New Testament book.

So that's how I see it.​

I just replied to one of @Douggg post. Maybe something I said per that post might address why A4E can't be meant? For one, in Daniel 8, 11, and 12, there is only one daily sacrifice that gets taken away. IOW, they are all referring to the same person, the same era of time.

We have to factor this in, the following, though.

Daniel 9:27 27a) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: 27b)and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, 27c)and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

27c) involves both abomination and desolation. And that it can't be meaning during 27b) nor prior to 27b). Therefore, 27c is meaning after 27b). And that taking away the daily sacrifice has to be involving 27c). Since 27b) is meaning Christ, and that A4E preceded Christ, A4E can't be meaning the one that takes the daily sacrifice away, since 27c) is meaning after a gap after 27b) is fulfilled first.

The only thing in the book of Daniel that I can see that can explain abomination and desolation per 27c) is the taking away the daily sacrifice. What else do you propose in the book of Daniel that can explain the abomination and desolation meant in 27c) if not the daily sacrifice being taken away? Do you find it reasonable that 27c) mentions abomination and desolation that follows after 27b) has been fulfilled first, but that there is zero anywhere in the book of Daniel that might further explain the AOD meant in 27c), as in Scripture interprets Scripture?

The only places in the NT that mentions an AOD is in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. In the event you propose that 70 AD explains 27c), well in that case, the NT disagrees with you since you don't have the AOD meant in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 involving 70 AD. Which means in your case, if you insist that taking the daily sacrifice away doesn't explain 27C), you then have zero Scripture in the entire Bible, both the OT and NT that can explain 27c). If you don't find that problematic, that even though there are numerous Scriptures that mention abomination and desolation, except none of them, as in zero, explains the AOD meant in 27c). Even though there is plenty of Scripture to interpret Scripture with Scripture, let's throw that out the window altogether in this case, this Scripture interprets Scripture thing, it's simply not applicable to 27c).

BTW, LOL at ourselves here. You and I do just fine, are on the same page a lot of the time. But every time A4E comes up, look what happens between us. I can't speak for you, but nothing I'm losing sleep over because we can't see eye to eye here. IOW, even though we disagree here, there is nothing that upsets me about it. I hope you feel the same way.

 

[Davidpt]

I agree with what you say above. Your mentioning it means that you yourself can see and recognize the fact that because Revelation 16:15 is sandwiched in-between Revelation 16:1-14 & Revelation 16:16-2,1 it means that the subject of Revelation 16:15 is not the same subject as the rest of the passage, even though - in this case - the timing for Revelation 16:15 is related to the events being described metaphorically in the passage.

But you seem to deny it when Daniel 12:11-12 is sandwiched in-between Daniel 12:1-10 & 13, and you seem unable to see and understand that the time-period being spoken of in the second prophecy in some Markan sandwiches is often not necessarily the same as the time-period mentioned in the first prophecy.

Don't worry too much about Revelation 16:15. You can explain some things to some interpreters of biblical prophecy but they just won't see it if they choose not to.

Let's have a look at another example (in Ezekiel this time) of this style of writing in the prophetic books:

One prophecy about the same thing:

Top piece of toast (Ezekiel 39:23-29) - picks up where the bottom piece of toast (Ezekiel 36:17 to Ezekiel 37:28) paused.

The prophet paused writing about the above things at Ezekiel 37:28, in order to add the contents of the 'Markan Sandwich' (the parenthesis, the in-between subject, which is what is written in Ezekiel 38:1 to Ezekiel 39:22 - Gog & Magog);

After Ezekiel 39:22, the prophet resumed writing about what he had started writing about (Ezekiel 36:17 to Ezekiel 37:28).

There are many, many examples of this style which the prophets ALL employed in their writings - the Bible is saturated with them (for another small example, the sword in Revelation 19:21 is the same sword already mentioned in Revelation 19:15).

Many will refuse to acknowledge what the prophets were saying by refusing to acknowledge this style in the writings of the prophets, choosing rather to conflate one prophecy with another by conflating the prophecy contained in the top piece and bottom piece of toast with the prophecy contained in-between.

They choose their own ignorance.

For example, many choose to conflate the prophecy contained in the bottom and top pieces of toast in Daniel 12:1-10 (bottom piece of toast) & 13 (top piece of toast), with the other prophecy in Daniel 12:11-2, which itself is the top piece of toast of a different prophecy which was fulfilled in its time by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

In Daniel 12:11-12 we have,

(1) A historical event, which the beginning of is fixed to commence at the time of the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the time when Antiochus IV set up of the image of Zeus in the holy place (which was the abomination of desolation); and

(2) The duration of this period of tribulation for God's faithful elect: 1,290 days. After that, the daily sacrifice was restored, and the abomination of desolation taken away - which is what the Jews still celebrate at the time of Hanukkah each year.

The above days were preceded by an apostasy which began 2,300 evenings and mornings before the 1,335 days was completed (Daniel 8:14), which was instigated by the high priest Menelaus, and according to Josephus's dates, began in the 142nd year of the Seleucid kingdom, the 6th month of the year, the 6th day of the month.

The close of the 2,300 evenings and mornings (which includes the 1,290 days) can be dated by history compared with what is written in the books of the Maccabees, to the 148th year of the Seleucid kingdom, the 9th month, and the 25th day of the month (1 Maccabees 4:52).

It's possible that the Jews' deliverance from the hand of Antiochus IV was completed 45 days later than the 1,290 days, when Antiochus died while on his way back to Jerusalem with his armies, determined to slaughter every Jew (possibly 1,335 days after he profaned the temple).

Note It's a possibility that the taking away of daily sacrifices and the 1,290 days and 1,335 days in Daniel 12:11-12 are themselves forerunners or types of what is to come (the rest of your post implies they are actually talking about the end of this age),

but IMO any Bible interpreter who chooses to force the above period (Daniel 12:11-12) into the return of Christ 2,100+ years later, needs to explain both what constitutes those daily sacrifices in the gospel age, and what constitutes the removal of the daily sacrifice in the years immediately preceding the return of Jesus - WITHOUT ENGAGING IN GUESS WORK AND SPECULATION AND THEOLOGICAL INVENTIONS.

2 Thessalonians 2 says nothing about a daily sacrifice or about a daily sacrifice being taken away at the close of our age. Nor does any other New Testament book.

So that's how I see it.​

IMO, comparing what I did there with what you are doing in Daniel 12:11-12 in light of Daniel 12:13 is not a fair comparison. Clearly, the coming meant in Revelation 16:15 is meaning during the days of the vials. Obviously, none of the vials were poured out thousands of years earlier and that the coming happens thousand of years later.

Therefore, there is connection with the vials and that of the coming. There is zero connection in Daniel 12:13 with that of verse 11 and 12 if those verses are meaning the days of A4E. But in Revelation 16 is the connection with the vials of wrath and the coming.

Your point seems to be this---sandwhiched, that the coming is between the 6th and 7th vial. That Daniel 12:11-12, in the same way is sandwhiched between the time of the end and the actual end, verse 13. Except A4E is not relevant between the time of the end and the actual end. While in Revelation 16 the coming between the 6th and 7th vial is relevant during the 6th and 7th vial.

We have to keep in mind here, first there is the time of the end, then there is the actual end, verse 13 in this case. Actually, verse 12 also since that is when verse 13 is meaning. And between this time of the end and the actual end is verse 11. And once again, A4E can't logically fit between the time of the end and the actual end. In order to even get from the time of the end to the actual end, one has to go through 1335 days first, where some of it is involving 1290 days pertaining to an AOD. One thing that might be possible since Revelation never mentions 1290 days but mentions 1260 days, 30 days of this could involve getting everything in place before the real trouble begins, this 1260 days, IOW, the 42 month reign of the beast.

Once again, keeping in mind, in Daniel 12 verse 11 is sandwhiched between the time of the end and the actual end. The time of the end can't precede the first coming, nor can the actual end not involve the 2nd coming meant in Revelation 16:15. Verse 11 fits between the first coming and the 2nd coming, not during the days of A4E. You of course know that A4E can't fit between the first coming and 2nd coming. But that's not the point. The point is verse 11 has to fit between the first coming and 2nd coming. Therefore, it defies logic that A4E can be meant per verse 11.


And if any of this involves AI, which I suspect it does, this 30 days of this 1290 days could symbolize the preparing of AI to take over the world, meaning it's early development stages. Then eventually it reaches consciousness, ASI. artificial super intelligence and then perfection, Singularity.

IOW, Stage 7: The AI Singularity (Hypothetical Future)
The final and speculative stage, the AI Singularity, postulates a future point where technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, leading to unforeseeable changes in human civilization..

 

[Zao is life]

BTW, LOL at ourselves here. You and I do just fine, are on the same page a lot of the time. But every time A4E comes up, look what happens between us. I can't speak for you, but nothing I'm losing sleep over because we can't see eye to eye here. IOW, even though we disagree here, there is nothing that upsets me about it. I hope you feel the same way.

Of course but I pick up irritation (even slightly angry) irritation with me on your part, for example when you refer to what I'm saying about A4E as what "some interpreters" say so I just respond in a very assertive tone.

I just replied to one of @Douggg post. Maybe something I said per that post might address why A4E can't be meant? For one, in Daniel 8, 11, and 12, there is only one daily sacrifice that gets taken away. IOW, they are all referring to the same person, the same era of time.

We have to factor this in, the following, though.

Daniel 9:27 27a)

"Factoring in" something that you are actually conflating with a completely different abomination is exactly where you make your mistake which leads to your misunderstanding, IMO.

Daniel 9:26-27 refers to the Messiah being cut off in the midst of the week, but not for Himself - compare these scriptures:

CUT OFF

Isaiah 53:8-9
"He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth."

Daniel 9:26a
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself"

Daniel 9:27a
"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"

Hebrews 10:5-12 (see Psalm 40:6-7).
"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth DAILY ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God."

The cutting off of the Messiah is to do with ending the old system of daily sacrifices for sin, because:

"Hear the word of YHWH, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith YHWH: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them." Isaiah 1:10-14.

When Christ had sacrificed His life for sins, the continued daily sacrifices became an abomination to God, therefore:

"and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." Daniel 9:27b.

The full verse reads,

"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."

And it's the New Covenant being spoken about. It brought about the destruction of the temple and the ENDING of the whole sacrificial system 40 years later, while the gospel was being preached to the Jews for 40 years:

THEREFORE David,

If you apply the abomination/s mentioned in Daniel 9:26-27 to Matthew 24:15

then you are interpreting Matthew 24:15 in the same way that the Preterists, Partial-Preterists, and most Amils do.

On the other hand, Daniel 12:11-12 (which is talking about the same thing Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 8:11 is talking about) is not talking about what Daniel 9:26-27 is talking about. A4E had nothing to do with Daniel 9:26-27. He was dead and gone over a hundred years before the prophesied events of Daniel 9:26-27 took place.

The events of Daniel 9:26-27 culminated in the destruction of the city and the temple, just as Daniel 9:26-27 said it would.

But the events that were prophesied in Daniel 8:11; 11:31; and 12:11-12 did not result in this:

They did not result either in the permanent cessation of the daily sacrifices OR in the destruction of the city or of the temple - the temple was cleansed after A4E was ousted.

Daniel 9:26-27 refers to one series of events only - the series of events that permanently caused sacrifice and offering to cease and the complete consummation of the whole system by the destruction of the temple and the city, 40 years later.

So you cannot apply any part of Daniel 9:26-27 to Matthew 24:15 as the Preterists, Partial Preterists and most Amils do without linking Matthew 24:15 to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD70.

If you continue to do the above then you are defending their belief.

Daniel 12:11-12 are closing a prophecy concerning the profaning of the temple and the temporary removal of the sacrificial system which Daniel began to speak about earlier, which is specifically mentioned in Daniel 8:11 and 11:31.

But NOW we are living in a day that is already nearly 2,000 years after Christ gave His body for the once-for-all sacrifice for sin, and 1,955 years after the whole system was finally ended by the desolation of the temple in 70 AD (prophesied about in Daniel 9:26-27).

So there are no sacrifices taking place that need to be put a stop to, or can be temporarily removed by anybody. THERE WILL BE NO SACRIFICES TO REMOVE AGAIN.

THE 1,290 DAYS AND 1,335 ARE LINKED TO THE TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF DAILY SACRIFICES AND APPLIED TO THE DAYS OF A4E ONLY.

So if you understand this:

=================================​

"'Abomination of Desolation' is a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily offering in the Jewish temple, or alternatively the altar on which such offerings were made."

(Abomination of desolation - Wikipedia)

=================================​

Then you will understand that the man who did that, though he is dead and gone and was dead and gone over a hundred years before Christ was born, he is a forerunner (type) of the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is what Matthew 24:15 is talking about.

* Nebuchadnezzar's image (Daniel 3) is a type of A4E'S idol in the temple - and both are types of 2 Thess 2:4 and Revelation 13:14-18.

* Nebuchadnezzar is a type of A4E - and both are types of the man of sin of 2 Thess 2:4.

* The idol A4E placed in the temple is a type of the abomination of desolation that will appear in the holy place when what has been prophesied in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Matthew 24:15 comes to pass.

* There will be no sacrifices for sin to be removed so there will be no 1.290 or 1,335 days.

* Daniel 9:26-27 has nothing to do with any of the above.

 

[Zao is life]

IMO, comparing what I did there with what you are doing in Daniel 12:11-12 in light of Daniel 12:13 is not a fair comparison. Clearly, the coming meant in Revelation 16:15 is meaning during the days of the vials. Obviously, none of the vials were poured out thousands of years earlier and that the coming happens thousand of years later.

There are multiple examples where two things are being prophesied in the same verse where the two things are hundreds or even thousands of years apart, for example:

Hosea 1
4 And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.
5 And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.

10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

That last sentence in verse 11 was a prophecy about something that was still to come (it had not yet been fulfilled when the prophecy was uttered),

but when it was fulfilled, it was fulfilled hundreds of years before the first sentence in verse 11 could begin to be fulfilled (because it is fulfilled in Christ).

So if you assert that is an unfair comparison to compare Revelation 16:10-16 (where Revelation 16:15 is an interjection creating a Markan Sandwich) with Daniel 12:11-12, then you must be consistent every time the prophets do this, such as in Hosea 1.11 (and many other places in scripture),

i.e for example in order to be consistent in your argument, you must say that it's unfair to compare the interjection of Hosea 1:10-11a into Hosea's prophecy, with Revelation 16:15 and assert that it's a common style of writing that the prophets used.

There is zero connection in Daniel 12:13 with that of verse 11 and 12 if those verses are meaning the days of A4E.

How many times have I not said that there is indeed zero connection of Daniel 12:13 / Daniel 12:1-10 with Daniel 12:11-12?

I've not only said it, I've repeatedly pointed out that Daniel 12:11-12 is referring back to the prophecy regarding the temporary removal of sacrifices for sin (whereas Daniel 12:1-10 and verse 13 are not talking about that, but about the end of this age we live in),

and this PROVES that Daniel 12:11-12 is an interjection into Daniel 12 - an interjection which closes what Daniel had prophesied about A4E.

In your opinion, Why did Daniel use the words "at that time" in Daniel 12:1 when the previous verses are talking about A4E (not to the end of the age and return of Christ)?

and why do you think Daniel interjected Daniel chapter 12 with the two verses seen in Daniel 12:11-12?

Why do you think that Daniel 12:6-7 reads almost the same as Revelation 10:5-7?

Do you believe God was not capable of inspiring His prophet Daniel to tell US in the 21st century about the end of the age and return of Christ in the middle of telling Daniel's B.C readers about the "man of sin" (my name given to A4E here for clarity)

Daniel prophesied about the "man of sin" who was to come, who was to exalt himself above the God of the Jews and place an idol in the holy place which he associated himself with. What does the end of this current age have to do with that?

God is not only capable of inspiring His prophet Daniel to this - He did inspire Daniel to do this in Daniel Chapter 12.

But why?

IMO God did this in the hopes that Davidpt and all God's other servants living in the 21st century would understand that if they want an example of the man of sin of 2 Thess 2:4 and what he will be like (and what he is going to do to God's holy place and to God's elect), then they need to look no further than back to A4E.

All your post did was show me that you will not fairly apply a Markan sandwich or interjection to every part of scripture where the prophet who wrote the prophecy applied a Markan Sandwich / interjection - because it interferes with your belief.

 

[Davidpt]

Of course but I pick up irritation (even slightly angry) irritation with me on your part, for example when you refer to what I'm saying about A4E as what "some interpreters" say so I just respond in a very assertive tone.

As to this. Even though I mention no interpreters by name when I say things like that, it logically has to include you being among these interpreters that I disagree with if you too are interpreting these things in the same manner. Therefore, looking at it like that I can see how you may have taken offense by what I said at times since you would be among the interpreters I am targeting here.

Before I even knew of you, before I even knew your view, I was already in opposition to interpreters placing A4E into the texts where I feel he cant fit, years before I ever met you. And it's unfortunate that you are now among these interpreters since it means what ever I say about them it equally applies to you. But even so, nothing angers me about someone placing A4E into the texts where I feel he doesn't fit. I just disagree is all and that I try and explain why.

And one of the reasons why is because to do so violates Daniel 12:4, IMO, since verse 11 and 12 have to be among the words that Daniel was to shut up and seal until the time of the end. And since the days of A4E doesn't involve the time of the end, but, that in my opinion verse 11 does involve the time of the end, therefore, A4E can't be meant in verse 11.

Another reason is this. What is verse 11 sandwhiched between? It is sandwhiched between the time of the end and the actual end, Therefore, it naturally follows that verse 11 has to fit the same era of time the time of the end is involving. How can verse 11 be between the time of the end and the actual end without verse 11 even involving the time of the end? I see no logic in that.

Something else I would like to point out. I noted that because you take Daniel 11:21-45 to be meaning A4E throughout, you then take in Daniel 12:1--and at that time--to be meaning A4E since that's who you have fulfulling verse 45 in ch 11. Obviously, at that time meant in verse 1 is undoubtedly meaning the era of time pertaining to verse 45. Your mistake is that you have A4E fitting verse 45 which then causes a contradiction in verse 1 and 2 in Daniel 12. For one, having A4E meaning at the beginning of verse 1 violates verse 4. Verse 1 is clearly in regards to the time of the end and that verse 2 and Matthew 24:15-31 prove it. Unless one is a Preterist, which you are not.

In verse 1 there is no gap of thousands of years between this part---And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people--and this part---and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

Notice what the text says---even to that same time. To what same time? Something said prior to that has to explain this--even to that same time. Otherwise, what same time is it talking about if not the same time Michael stands up where that is involving the same time verse 45 in ch 11 is involving?


The reasons I disagree that A4E is meant in the book of Daniel is because there is no logic to it if he is. It places a gap of thousand of years in verse 1 where there could not possibly be a gap like that there. It defies logic that A4E can be meant in Daniel 12 if the words are shut up until the time of the end and that the time of the end when the words are no longer shut up, A4E is ancient history by then, long gone and dead.

Doesn't logic count for anything? If something is undeniably not logical why would anyone even entertain it let alone adopt it?

 

[Zao is life]

As to this. Even though I mention no interpreters by name when I say things like that, it logically has to include you being among these interpreters that I disagree with if you too are interpreting these things in the same manner.

It was strange to me that you popped that into a post in my thread without telling me you'd posted or quoting my post. It meant you were not talking to me though you were talking about what I said and disagreeing with it.​

The reasons I disagree that A4E is meant in the book of Daniel is because there is no logic to it if he is. It places a gap of thousand of years in verse 1 where there could not possibly be a gap like that there. It defies logic that A4E can be meant in Daniel 12 if the words are shut up until the time of the end and that the time of the end when the words are no longer shut up, A4E is ancient history by then, long gone and dead. Doesn't logic count for anything? If something is undeniably not logical why would anyone even entertain it let alone adopt it?

IMO you're applying rules to biblical prophecy that none of biblical prophecy abides by. For example, if we abide by your rule that you apply to Daniel 12:11-12, then Hosea 1:10-11a is illogical, because it places the fulfillment of that prophecy in a different time-period to the time-period during which the rest of the prophecy was fulfilled.

Removing Hosea 1:10-11a from the text does not change the meaning of the rest of the prophecy - but adding it would place the fulfillment of the prophecy in a different age to the time-period during which the rest of Hosea 1 was actually fulfilled, if we refused to allow the prophet to combine different prophecies about things that would be fulfilled in different time-periods into one and the same text:

Hosea 1, verses 10-11a removed:​

1 The word of Yhwh that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel. 2 The beginning of the word of Yhwh by Hosea. And Yhwh said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from Yhwh. 3 So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son. 4 And Yhwh said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. 5 And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. 6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Lo–ruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. 7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by Yhwh their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen. 8 Now when she had weaned Lo–ruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son. 9 Then said God, Call his name Lo–ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.
11b And they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

Adding verses 10-11a to the above prophecy does not change what the prophecy is referring to, but adds a different (though related) prophecy about something that would only be able to take place in a different age - because it takes place in Christ:
​

10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. 11a Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head.

​

Going back to Daniel 12, If you abide by your rule then you are obliged to follow through with your own rule regarding (what you say is) logical by interpreting Daniel 12:11-12 to mean that there must be a temporary removal of sacrifices for sins in a temple where an abomination of desolation has been placed in the latter days immediately preceding the return of Christ:

Historically, at the time of A4E there was indeed a time of trouble for God's elect people, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time. At that time they that were wise did indeed shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turned many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. You will meet them after the return of Christ.

At that time A4E scattered the power of the holy people, and all of it became a type of the latter days which precede the return of Christ, which is why Revelation 10:2-7 alludes to Daniel 12:4-9. Many were purified in the days of A4E, and made white, and tried; but the wicked did wickedly: and none of the wicked understood; but the wise understood.

But the most important thing about what you say regarding this is that you are now obliged by your own rule regarding what you believe is logical, to explain how there will be a temporary removal of sacrifices for sins in a temple in which an abomination of desolation has been placed, which will be marked by 1,290 days and 1,335 days - as Daniel 12:11-12 says.

Daniel 12 is not separated from Daniel 11 in the actual text in the manuscripts that all translations are made from. Those chapter divisions were only added in the year 1227 A.D. Chapter 12 is not a stand-alone chapter, and though you prefer to abide in denial of this fact, A4E and his war with Egypt (the king of the south) and all his activities just happens to have historically fulfilled everything that was prophesied about the person identified in Daniel 11:21 and Daniel 8:9.

You have applied a rule to biblical prophecy, and your rule states that prophecy must abide by your opinion of what is logical and what is not. But prophecy does not abide by your rules or by what fallible human minds regard as logical or illogical - and the proof of this lies in the fact that prophecy often pops into a text a reference to something that the surrounding text is not talking about, or mixes two different (but related) things or two different time-periods into one and the same text - and I've given you an example of this in Hosea chapter 1. There are many examples of this in the prophetic books of the Bible, Daniel 12 being one of them.

IMO you are not letting the text teach us what it's saying, but instead telling the text it has to abide by what human beings may regard as logical and illogical - and that's on top of denying that Daniel's AoD has anything to do with A4E .​

 

[Douggg]

In your opinion, Why did Daniel use the words "at that time" in Daniel 12:1 when the previous verses are talking about A4E (not to the end of the age and return of Christ)?

Antiochus IV is in Daniel 11:31. Historic abomination of desolation event.

A few verses later is Daniel 11:35 that transitions to the time of the end. "time of the end" is in the verse.

Everything from Daniel 11:36 to Daniel 12:12 is time of the end. The king in Daniel 11:36 is the beast-king of Revelation 13.

"at that time" in Daniel 12:1 is time of the end. And Michael standing up in Daniel 12:1 is when Michael and his angels will cast Satan and in his angels down to earth in Revelation 12:7-9. Bringing Satan's power near to its end. A time, times, half time later, Satan will be cast into the bottomless pit.

All to take place at "the time of the end".

 

[Zao is life]

Antiochus IV is in Daniel 11:31. Historic abomination of desolation event.

A few verses later is Daniel 11:35 that transitions to the time of the end. "time of the end" is in the verse.

Everything from Daniel 11:36 to Daniel 12:12 is time of the end. The king in Daniel 11:36 is the beast-king of Revelation 13.

"at that time" in Daniel 12:1 is time of the end. And Michael standing up in Daniel 12:1 is when Michael and his angels will cast Satan and in his angels down to earth in Revelation 12:7-9. Bringing Satan's power near to its end. A time, times, half time later, Satan will be cast into the bottomless pit.

All to take place at "the time of the end".

Historically A4E indeed fulfilled all that was prophesied from Daniel 11:36 onward and this is why he is a type of the beast-king of Revelation 13, and why Daniel 11:35 onward combines the latter days before the return of Christ with the time of the end of the reign of A4E. Daniel is doing exactly what Hosea does in Hosea 1:10-11 - combining TWO different time-periods into one.

Just as the final sentence in Hosea 1:11 applies only to the first time-period, so some things in Daniel chapters 11-12 apply only to the time of A4E. Daniel 12:11-12 applies only to the time of A4E, who is the type of the man of sin and the beast-king of Revelation 13. Daniel 12:11-12 does not apply to the latter days before the return of Christ when the beast-king appears.

Daniel is writing using the same poetry and prophetic language that the prophets all used.

All you guys such as @Davidpt and others who have assigned Daniel 12:11-12 (the type) to the latter days before the return of Christ (the antitype) start guessing about how the temporarily removal of sacrifices which the 1,290 and 1,335 days are linked to, will be fulfilled in the latter days before the return of Christ - because you refuse to acknowledge the historical fact that those days were already fulfilled during the time of A4E.​

 

[Douggg]

Just as the final sentence in Hosea 1:11 applies only to the first time-period, so some things in Daniel chapters 11-12 apply only to the time of A4E.

No, nothing in Daniel 11:36-12:12 is at the time of Antiochus IV. Daniel 11:36-12:12 is time of the end.

All you guys such as @Davidpt and others who have assigned Daniel 12:11-12 (the type) to the latter days before the return of Christ (the antitype) start guessing about how the temporarily removal of sacrifices which the 1,290 and 1,335 days are linked to, will be fulfilled in the latter days before the return of Christ - because you refuse to acknowledge the historical fact that those days were already fulfilled during the time of A4E.

Everyone, but you, believes that we are living in the time of the end when Jesus returns. Daniel 11:36-12:12 is not historical but time of the end as the verses say.

Daniel 12:2, for example, did not happen back in Antiochus IV's day. But, instead, will happen in the time of the end.

Daniel 12:2 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.

 

[Zao is life]

Daniel 11:36-12:12 is not historical but time of the end as the verses say.

Everything prophesied from 11:36 was fulfilled by Antiochus IV, including verses 40-45.

You think the words "the time of the end" applies only to the return of Christ, but your belief is based on ignorance.

Daniel 12:2, for example, did not happen back in Antiochus IV's day.

That does not mean that Daniel 11:36-45 was not fulfilled at the time of the end of the days of Antiochus IV (which is why it became the type of what is to come at the time of the end of this age we now live in):

But, instead, will happen in the time of the end.

You blind yourself and the words your blindness produces blind you even further, Dougg. It's not "either, "or" when referring to the time of the end in Daniel's prophecy - it's "the former and "the latter".

Daniel 12:2 has not happened yet. It's part of the latter time. Daniel 12:11-12 has happened. It's part of the former time of the end of the days of Antiochus IV.

You're only showing your limited understanding of prophecy.

The former time of the end is a type of the latter - that's why some of the things in Daniel 12 have not yet occurred:

Daniel 12:2 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.