There is no separate word 'he' in the Bible manuscripts in 9:27 -
Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm[sup]H1396 the covenantH1285 with manyH7227 for oneH259 week:H7620 and in the midstH2677 of the weekH7620 he shall cause the sacrificeH2077 and the oblationH4503 to cease,H7673 and forH5921 the overspreadingH3671 of abominationsH8251 he shall make it desolate,H8074 even untilH5704 the consummation,H3617 and that determinedH2782 shall be pouredH5413 uponH5921 the desolate.H8076 [/sup]
[sup] [/sup]
Only words with Strong's numbering are in the manuscripts. As anyone can see, the word "he" does not exist in the manuscripts. So, you have no Biblical way to even suggest that the "he" of 9:27 is anyone different than the "prince" of 9:26.
I believe this error is, as the saying goes, "Checkmate".
I expect your acknowledgment [in true Christian fashion] of your gross error in your next post.
Like I said earlier the reader needs to make a choice about who to apply the first part of the 27th verse to. Eather the prince or the Messiah. Since you can not prove that Satan the "prince" from 26 makes a covenant with many, or to be clear with your rendering, with Israel. Its clear you can't see Jesus or the Messiah in the 27th verse. The choice. Lets look at the word cut, Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And see which one would be better applied to he in 27.
Shall Messiah
be cut off--------------------my choice in he that is mentioned in 27
3772 karath kaw-rath' a primitive root; to cut (off, down or asunder); by implication, to destroy or consume; specifically, to covenant (i.e. make an alliance or bargain, originally by cutting flesh and passing between the pieces):--be chewed, be con-(feder-)ate, covenant, cut (down, off), destroy, fail, feller, be freed, hew (down), make a league ((covenant)), X lose, perish, X utterly, X want.
prince from verse 26
5057 nagiyd naw-gheed' or nagid {naw-gheed'}; from
5046; a commander (as occupying the front), civil, military or religious; generally (abstractly, plural), honorable themes:--captain, chief, excellent thing, (chief) governor, leader, noble, prince, (chief) ruler.
Now you tell me which one is a better description of he in verse 27. He shall confirm a covenant with many.
To reply to your statement
bud02 said; The context outline in 24 indicates that this is Messianic.
True -- and it is covered at the end of 9:27 -
Dan 9:27 . . . until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
"That determined" is what is covered in 9:24. It is speaking of the pouring of the vials of God's wrath.
Just where is
desolate,
consummation, mentioned in the opening verse?
[sup]24[/sup] “
Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.
What it's saying is that after the 70th week the temple will be destroyed.
Its in reference to both the Messiah and the people of the prince to come in 26.
The verse that Gabriel gave a time for as simply being after the 69th week. Messiah cut off is in the middle of last week and the temple destroyed, is just beyond in 70 AD.
Jesus determined it was desolate at the end of Mt chapter 23. But the focus of the 70 weeks is not the prince or the destruction of the temple they fall out side the 70th week. You see how the 70 week are defined in 24 it all positive Messianic fulfillments. But 26 speaks about just beyond the 70th week, it says after that includes today, today is after the 69th week.
I would like to note before you call me uneducated.....or
I have laid it out plain enough so that any child can understand. What's your excuse??
or
I am fully aware of your blasphemy!
Well, it is fools like you who think the Bible manuscripts are in English.
Well, it is quite obvious to anyone viewing your discourse that the true "Bottom Line" is that you have no honor.
If you can stop with your childish and incredulous ranting long enough to make a coherent point or question, a person might be able to better understand what yet has not been answered.
Then you have audacity to continue to ask for an apology.
I expect your acknowledgment [in true Christian fashion] of your gross error in your next post.
I really believe you owe more than just me an apology.
How blind are you??
Any covenant made with Israel, was made long before Jesus' walk in the flesh. There was no new covenant for Christ to make.
You might ask yourself the very question you pointed at me. Thats the first and last line of your post.
By the way it says; [sup]27[/sup] Then he shall
confirm a covenant
with many for one week;
[sup]28[/sup] For this is
My blood of the new[sup] [/sup]covenant, which is shed
for many for the remission of sins.
teleiosis tried to say the same thing MAKE a covenant.