Search results

What is the grammatical identification, specifically? Your conclusion doesn’t follow grammatically. It’s a non sequitur. The fact that the Messiah is cut off does not make it grammatically impossible for the next clause to refer back to him. People are routinely referred to after their death...

You don’t have anytime to address the OP. That is telling.

You’re assuming the very point in dispute. Of course Daniel contains multiple princes (e.g., Michael, the prince of Persia, the prince of Greece, etc.). The question isn’t whether Daniel has multiple princes in general. The question is whether the nāḡîḏ of Daniel 9:26 is grammatically required...

Again, your inability to address the OP is noted. Thank you providing a man’s doctrine according bullinger, but that doesn’t address the OP. I’m not talking about doctrine. I’m asking about grammatical and contextual rules, to which continue to not address.

your inability to address the OP is noted.

I’m asking about #1

You seem to be conflating lexical definition with referential identity. Definition: The Hebrew word translated “prince” in both Daniel 9:25 and 9:26 is נָגִיד (nāḡîḏ). Are you arguing that nāḡîḏ does not mean “prince,” “leader,” or “ruler” in both verses? Identity: Or are you saying that you...

And MY op has nothing to do with your “facts”. The question is simple, if the messiah in vs 26a is the messiah of vs 25, then what grammatical/contextual evidence are you using to determine that the prince of 26b is NOT the prince of vs 25? Right now, you are giving me external framework -...

From purely a grammatical/contextual standpoint, how do you know that?

What does this have to do with my question?

You’ve misunderstood my question. I’m not looking for the specific identity of the prince. I’m asking why, from an internal grammatical and contextual standpoint, does the messiah in vs 26a refer to the messiah in vs 25, BUT the prince in 26b does not refer to the prince in 25?

Like @covenantee demonstrated, prince in 26b did have a capital in an English translation , so I don’t think your capital vs lower case argument is relevant to my point. Additionally, careful with the English. It doesn’t say the prince shall come and destroy the city and sanctuary. Instead...

Daniel 9 doesn’t present the identity of the prince at all. So I agree you can’t demonstrate the identity of the prince in regards to grammar or context. But that’s not really what I was asking.

I haven’t seen why someone would argue the messiah in 26a = the messiah in 25, while the prince in 26b doesn’t equal the prince in 25 from purely an internal grammatical/contextual standpoint. I understand that premils will argue the prince in 26b does not equal the prince 25 because of...

In Daniel 9:25, there are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until “the messiah the prince.” Then, in verse 26a, it explains what happens after the seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, “the messiah” is cut off, and in verse 26b, the people of “the prince” who is to...

From a contextual standpoint point absolutely agreed. Interesting tidbit, and I’ll loop in @Davidpt — In the Old Greek manuscript of the Septuagint, it doesn’t say “people of prince to come” in 26b. Instead it says a “kingdom of the nations will destroy the city and sanctuary with the christ”...

In Daniel 9:25, there are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until “Messiah the Prince.” Then, in verse 26a, it explains what happens after the seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, “the Messiah” is cut off. Finally, in verse 26b, the people of “the prince” who is to...

That’s your interpretation of what that’s supposed to mean. That’s not clear instruction that Christ connects the AOD to the cross. Ok, so then you agree the answer to the disciples question “when shall these things be?”, in regards to the temple destruction, Is answered by Christ throughout...

His answer is about the temple being destroyed, unless there is something contextual where Jesus clearly indicates he is not addressing their question.

1.) where does Christ explicitly and clearly link the AOD to the cross? 2.) Any time the disciples have a misunderstanding, either Christ corrects, or the author narrates the explanation. Where, in the OD, does Christ explicitly correct the disciples? Or where does the author insert a narrated...