We just see things differently, not a problem.
I am not entirely sure what you mean by
“seeing things differently,” but let me approach the issue this way.
In Daniel 9, English translations use the word “prince” four times. A reader may naturally assume that all four occurrences represent the same Hebrew word and carry the same meaning. They do not.
Daniel 9:6 and 9:8 refer to Israel’s “princes” using the Hebrew word
śar. Daniel 9:25 and 9:26 use a different word,
nagiyd, for “Messiah the Prince” and “the prince who is to come.” That distinction matters. When different Hebrew words are translated by the same English word, important differences can easily disappear. This becomes especially problematic when someone attempts to identify these princes
solely by applying an English rule about the nearest antecedent.
Some argue that the “prince who is to come” in verse 26 must refer back to “Messiah the Prince” in verse 25 simply because Messiah is the nearest preceding person called a prince. But that conclusion cannot be established merely by appealing to English grammar.
The Hebrew Scriptures were not written according to modern English grammatical conventions, nor was the Greek New Testament. English translations must naturally follow English sentence structure, but the interpretation must ultimately be governed by the original language, the immediate context, and the sequence of events described in the prophecy. Therefore, we should not assume that every English occurrence of “prince” means exactly the same thing, nor should we identify the prince of verse 26 simply by locating the nearest English antecedent. The Hebrew words and the context must first be examined.
