Daniel's 70Th Week: Warnings

[242006]

Buck-up and tell me what this other 'prince' does -- fill in your silent dashes.

Well, you claim to have studied Daniel 9:24-27 over a hundred times. So, you should know full well what Satan does. It is stated in 9:27 -

Dan 9:27​

​

​

​

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.

​

In a prior post(s), I explained (1) confirm the covenant and (2) cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. The third one, (3) the overspreading of abominations, is the easiest one -- one that should have left no doubt in your mind that it speaks of Satan.

Rev 12:15​

​

​

​

And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

​

What is the 'flood' coming out of Satan's mouth??

<B>

Rev 12:17</B>​

​

​

​

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

​

That which opposes the 'flood' of Satan is the testimony of Jesus Christ -- i.e. the Word of God! Hence, the 'flood' coming out of Satan's mouth is a 'flood of lies" -- i.e. false bible doctrine.

Rev 13:5​

​

​

​

And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

​

Here, it leaves no doubt that the 'flood' coming out of Satan's mouth is his talk of 'great things and blasphemies'. Clearly, the meaning of 'overspreading of abominations' fits Satan's endtime 'flood'.

 

[242006]

Its pretty clear you have no evidence to support what ever you believe it says, which at best is still unclear.

How blind are you?? In the very post to which you comment, I provided the meaning of the words in the Bible manuscripts and a more appropriate English rendering. Your most prevalent and fatal error is that you assume the Bible manuscripts are in English and you can derive whatever interpretation you choose based upon your understanding of English.

No covenant between Satan and the Jews "Israel" can be found.
No reference to a new Temple building can be found.
No explanation for the use of a day for a year in prophesy. Its used in every other prophesy in the bible, but you DO NOT use it in Revelation. WHY?
No 7 year tribulation can be found in scripture.

All you do is the 'ostrich'. Nothing new here. No matter what others write that prove you in error, you ignore it all.

So what do you do, make it say what you want.

So lets here your translation and one other verse to support it.
I've done this repeatedly you have yet to even clearly define your interpretation with scriptural evidence.
With no evidence I can only presume its yours and yours alone.

It amazes me it what degree people like yourself will go to.
What are you going to do rewrite the bible.

Well, it is fools like you who think the Bible manuscripts are in English. The problem with you is that you take your interpretation of ambiguous words and try to force context out of it. Whereas, a Bible student understands the context first, which allows her/him to select the correct rendering of the general ambiguous words.

To understand context, one has to know the following facts:

1) The 70th week is the last week of this flesh dispensation of time
2) Christ never 'caused' the cessation of sacrifices and oblations, either upon His crucifixion or when He returns.
3) The 'prince' of 9:26, which is the 'he' of 9:27, is inextricably linked to the 'abomination of desolation' of Mat. 24:15, which, in turn, is the same as the 'man of sin', the 'son of perdition', in 2 Thes. 2:3-4, who is Satan.

Since you can't get your facts straight, you are ill-positioned to provide proper interpretation.

Same word used here covenantH1285


Exodus 6- [sup]4[/sup]And I have also established my covenant H1285 with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.

Ezek 16: 60 (AV) Nevertheless I will remember my covenant H1285 with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant H1285. (New Covenant(?) with Israel). v62 similar.

1 Chr 16: 17 And hath set up the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant H1285 , (To the person Jacob or Israel, not the people Israel, from the previous verse.) Ps 105:10 is the same verse within the same passage.

There you go 4 uses of the same word. Ezek even uses it to describe an everlasting covenant,
In my book 4 Aces beats your opinion every time.

So please spare everyone the nonsense of your interpretation of the word covenant.
And do as I do and show some scriptural evidence. I getting tired of your game and play on words.

I never said it cannot ever be rendered as 'covenant'. See Strong's Concordance. The word has ambiguity. It is the context which drives the proper rendering -- not vice versa. I am not completely opposed to the use of 'covenant' in 9:27 as long as it is understood that the 'he' therein is Satan and the 'many' therein are non-Christians or are Satan's followers -- not Israel.

Irrespective of whether the rendering should be 'covenant', 'confederacy', or 'leauge', the underlying premise of your argument for this clause is fatally flawed. You are claiming that the 'he' of 9:27 is Christ and that Christ makes a covenant with Israel. Nowhere in scripture can it be proven that Christ makes a new covenant with Israel. In fact, scripture disproves your position.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Any covenant made with Israel, was made long before Jesus' walk in the flesh. There was no new covenant for Christ to make.

 

[242006]

Sure you have provided nothing more than anyone else I have asked for evidence. Its your opinion.

I have laid it out plain enough so that any child can understand. What's your excuse??

On the second hand I say that he in 9-27 is Jesus. The second bold you make no reference to that, or the fact that I have repeatedly said the 70th week was completed by Jesus.
Beginning when He was baptized; in the middle of the week He was cut off, ending the sacrifices. This completed work was offered to the "Jewish nation and scattered "Jacob" alone until the vision of Peter and the calling of Paul thus ending the 70th week. 70 weeks were determinded of you "Danial" and your people.

I am fully aware of your blasphemy!

I have edified you in a prior post that the 69th week ended with Christ's crucifixion. The word 'cut off' speaks to the crucifixion [has flesh connotation]. Hence, the 70th week comes thereafter.

The 70 weeks speak to the end of Israel and the temple mount. The burden of proof is yours to demonstrate that all Jews and all Israelites. as well as the temple mount, no longer exist after Christ's crucifixion.

So don't end the description of Veterans interpretation by mentioning mine.

Though Veteran understands that the 'he' of 9:27 is Satan, you both are in error regarding that clause. Veteran is in error in thinking that Satan confirms a covenant with 'Israel'. And, you are in error in claiming that 'Christ' confirms a covenant with 'Israel'. So, Veteran is half right; whereas, you are in complete error.

You are very good at calling people wrong without offering your own opinion.

Tell me one instance when I did not describe to the viewers the reasons why you are in error!

When you do its as week as it comes, perhaps thats why you dodge the issue. It easier to simply discredit others

Rev 12 [sup]9[/sup]And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Thats a long way from covenant my friend. Hes been doing this since Eve.deceiveth does not a covenant make. To quote you " Eventhough your understanding is weak,"

Gibberish! Try making a cogent point. I have not dodged a single issue!

 

[veteran]

Well you have not provided a verse indicating Satan making a covenant in all your references to him.
You also haven't shown why in Rev that you ignore the day = year definition of time used in Danial, and outlined in Numbers 14-34 and Ezekiel 4:6,
Your indication of Paul writing that, "Satan that has wanted to sit in God's Place", In 2 Thes Has problems when it comes to a temple building.



The word used above is, 3485. naos nah-os' from a primary naio (to dwell); a fane, shrine, temple :--shrine, temple.



The word used above here is, 2411. hieron hee-er-on' neuter of 2413; a sacred place, i.e. the entire precincts (whereas 3485 denotes the central sanctuary itself) of the Temple (at Jerusalem or elsewhere):--temple.



In the above verse you guest it, its 3485. naos nah-os' from a primary naio (to dwell); a fane, shrine, temple :--shrine, temple.



2411. hieron hee-er-on' neuter of 2413; a sacred place,



As you guested it ..........3485. naos nah-os' from a primary naio (to dwell); a fane, shrine, temple :--shrine, temple.

So it would appear that the TEMPLE in 2 thes is not a building, but a temple of flesh. So also goes the need of a 3rd temple that is not spoken of in Danial 9:27, but is presumed to be, because of the necessity of your translation, that 9:27 is AC and not Jesus Christ. There is no indication of a 3rd temple in scripture. The temple in Rev is the heavenly temple. You don't even have to use the Greek definition to see thar Paul is not speaking about a building "temple" all you have to do is compare the word used threw the scriptures.

2411. hieron hee-er-on' neuter of 2413; a sacred place,............................................... is used to describe a building.
3485. naos nah-os' from a primary naio (to dwell); a fane, shrine, temple :--shrine, temple............................... used to describe our flesh.

If Paul had used the word "hieron" then yes I would agree that new 3rd temple is spoken of.
But he didn't and that leaves you and your interpretation without a leg to stand on.



So who is it that is duping who? You have no scriptural support for your interpretation.
No covenant between Satan and the Jews "Israel" can be found.
No reference to a new Temple building can be found.
No explanation for the use of a day for a year in prophesy. Its used in every other prophesy in the bible, but you DO NOT use it in Revelation. WHY?
No 7 year tribulation can be found in scripture.

Conclusion from the comparing of scripture to your interpretation of the 70th week Dan 9-27 being the Anti-Christ, in some future 7 year event.
ZERO evidence, Its the bait on the hook once you swallow it your hooked, it affects your entire understanding of the NT. I believe you used the word duped.

All these verses use the Greek word 'naos' for a literal temple in Jerusalem, not a shrine, which is the same word Paul used in 2 Thess.2:4.

Matt 23:16
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
(KJV)

Matt 23:35
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
(KJV)

John 2:20
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(KJV)

Luke 23:45
45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
(KJV)

Luke 1:21
21 And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple.
(KJV)


Those in Jerusalem that make a covenant with 'death'. Who has been given power of death? Death himself, which is another one of Satan's titles.

Isa 28:14-22
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.
20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.
21 For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, He shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that He may do His work, His strange work; and bring to pass His act, His strange act.
22 Now therefore be ye not mockers, lest your bands be made strong: for I have heard from the Lord GOD of hosts a consumption, even determined upon the whole earth.
(KJV)

 

[bud02]

Thank you. Undoubtedly, the term 'prince', without an identifier, leaves it up for debate as to whom Gabriel is speaking of.

In bud02's defense, the KJV translators thought that the 'prince' in 9:26 was speaking of Christ as well. From the 1611 KJV -


Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weekes, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himselfe, and the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the citie, and the Sanctuarie, and the ende thereof shall be with a flood, and vnto the ende of the warre desolations are determined.

It was in later editions of the KJV that the correction was made to 'prince'.

The identifier is from verse 26 its ether Jesus or the prince to come. One of them needs to be associated with he in verse 27.
The context outline in 24 indicates that this is Messianic.

I explained this before but I will again. We have a tree on the ground Gabriel says cut 70 weeks out for you and your people and your Holy city. Gabriel starts the chain saw and makes one cut then measures 70 weeks and makes another cut. Now just picture this in your head you and Gabriel are standing next to this log that represents time. He has just cut a 70 week section out of it and applied it to the Hebrews.
He says in verse 25 Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;

He first identified the first cut, From the time of the command to To restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah there will be 69 weeks. Just visualize it while you read. Gabriel pulls out his tape measure marked with weeks and measures the cut log, and says at the 69th week Messiah shall come. That's the mark in time "the 69 week" we are speaking about, lets read the next verse.

[sup]26[/sup] “ And after the sixty-two weeks -------------------------------see the time identifier? the mark Gabriel indicated.
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; ------------------Were looking at the mark at 69 weeks----

-----just before the 70 week cut after the cut there is the continued tree "Time", He Gabriel says AND AFTER this mark the the 69 week, Messiah shall be cut of, the log of 70 weeks is not cut, but the Messiah will be cut off sometime after this mark, it could be in the last week or it could be past the 70 week cut. He simple says after. Now were still using that 69th week mark and he continues with the rest of the verse.

And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

All it says is sometime after the 69th week the Messiah will be cut off and the people of the prince to come will destroy the city and sanctuary. The prince is Satan IMO.

The next verse you have to make a decision do you apply he to; the Messiah or the prince?
I say its the Messiah simply because Gabriel now speaks about the last week. Remember the mark until Messiah 69 week, That's all we have been spoken to up until now. Now Gabriel speaks about the time of the Messiah the 70th week, You can not have the Messiah come and be cut off at the same point in time, like you explain it. You have Him coming in 25 and then cut his time off, by cutting the log.

And the 4 reasons you 2 can not find scripture to support.
No covenant between Satan and the Jews "Israel" can be found.
No reference to a new Temple building can be found.
No explanation for the use of a day for a year in prophesy. Its used in every other prophesy in the bible, but you DO NOT use it in Revelation. WHY?
No 7 year tribulation can be found in scripture.



[sup]27[/sup] Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; ------------ the 70th week began when Anointed by the Father at Johns Baptism.
But in the middle of the week ------------------------He was cut off at the cross Father why have you forsaken me.
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. --------------------------------Mathew 23-38 He left the temple desolate, His sacrifice ended the need for another.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, ----------here is the prince coming to MAKE IT DESOLATE. from verse 26.
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

 

[bud02]

In that post, you did nothing but disprove your own position.

Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)​

It could not be any easier than this to understand! The context of this scripture is a description of the events whick precede Christ's return [Mat. 24:3]. Paul addressed this same endtime occurrence.

I covered it in detail< he speaks from the destruction of the temple 70 AD right threw the last days. If you and Veteran can see that or separate them so be it.

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Been here to its another one of your word games. That word temple in Greek is used by both Jesus and Paul every time they speak of their fleshly temple read it and weep.
http://www.christian...post__p__89387.


​

Here, we see the connection to Christ's words in Mat. 24:15, which, in turn, links itself to Dan. 9:26-27, plus the identification of the entity involved with this action. Christ is not 'that man of sin' and the 'son of perdition'!! It is Satan!! See Eze. 28 for the proof. Without question or a shred of doubt, the 'prince' of Dan. 9:26, who is the 'he' of 9:27, is Satan. It is blasphemy for you to claim that the 'prince' and 'he' is Christ!

You the ones that can't read your trying some new twist about the prince of the people being Christ. I never said that you dreamed it up in your first reply to my post about your covenant interpretation spin job.

Apparently, you cannot read!! I already provided you the answer!

Rev 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. ​

Apparently you are avoiding the references in time in Rev 12 and 13. Any one can see that 2 men are not living for that amount of time.

​

Unless you can prove that the two witnesses, dressed in sackcloth, are currently here and teaching for 1,260 YEARS, instead of days, you have absolutely no ground to stand upon.

See above post

I have already addressed 'the covenant and sacrifices' a few times. Try reading my posts for a change!!

I have also told you many times that the 'prince' of 9:26, which is the 'he' of 9:27, is SATAN!! How in the world can you say that I have not given you my interpretation??

I dont deny the prince of 26 is Satan, But He in 27 is Christ not the prince.

Name one time that I have misquoted anything!! Where is your proof??

Look up you started some crazy line about the original writer of the KJ bible thought prince was Jesus and started applying it to me. And continue in this thread

I think that your tactic is "doing the ostrich" -- just like Catholics do when people inform them that Peter is not "this rock" in Mat. 16:18. If you were one of "the saints of the most High", you would not be profferring the wrong interpretation of Dan. 9:24-27, as you do now. In fact, if you were a Christian, you would have admitted your error long ago and thanked me for edifying you.

I think your tacit is dodge and run. That hack job you tried to pull on the word covenant makes it clear to everyone reading that you would rather twist scripture to suit your interpretation instead of letting the scriptures speak for themselves. You've been puffing smoke on my clear teaching of the passage from the beginning.

 

[bud02]

All these verses use the Greek word 'naos' for a literal temple in Jerusalem, not a shrine, which is the same word Paul used in 2 Thess.2:4.

Matt 23:16
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
(KJV)

Matt 23:35
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
(KJV)

John 2:20
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(KJV)

Luke 23:45
45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
(KJV)

Luke 1:21
21 And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple.
(KJV)

Very good veteran Im glad to see your using your bible.
In both instances in Mathew Jesus uses the other word because He is referring the Temple in context of the shicona glory of God, When that was the only place that God dwelled in. FYI Paul speaks after the fact and understands the difference, it refers to Satan coming in the flesh of a man. The new dwelling place of God our flesh.

Its the same for Luke the official departure of God from the temple. Just a few days after Jesus said I leave it desolate.

Its evident that Zacharias met Gabriel in the temple, But this is before Jesus, is it not? and like I said when Jesus was blasting the Pharisees He was referring to the Holy position and prominence they held before God and His house He yet resided in. Hes referring to their inequity before the Spirit of God in His house.

Paul said several times we are the temple of God, the greatest gift of God is the Holy Spirit that can now dwell in every believer because of what Jesus did..
Is God going to go back to a temple and Levitical system after restoring us that He may dwell within us.

Jer 31-[sup]31[/sup]Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [sup]32[/sup]Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

[sup]33[/sup]But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

[sup]34[/sup]And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

[sup]35[/sup]Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

So now you know the difference 'naos' is the dwelling place of God. If they build a new temple do you think it will be the dwelling place of God. Paul understood Jeremiah and rightly said WE ARE THE TEMPLE OF GOD.

 

[veteran]

Very good veteran Im glad to see your using your bible.
In both instances in Mathew Jesus uses the other word because He is referring the Temple in context of the shicona glory of God, When that was the only place that God dwelled in. FYI Paul speaks after the fact and understands the difference, it refers to Satan coming in the flesh of a man. The new dwelling place of God our flesh.

Its the same for Luke the official departure of God from the temple. Just a few days after Jesus said I leave it desolate.

Its evident that Zacharias met Gabriel in the temple, But this is before Jesus, is it not? and like I said when Jesus was blasting the Pharisees He was referring to the Holy position and prominence they held before God and His house He yet resided in. Hes referring to their inequity before the Spirit of God in His house.

Oh really, come on. In ALL usages I gave of that word 'temple', the context is always about a LITERAL temple, the one in Jerusalem. That shows you can't just go on a tirade with that Greek word 'naos' trying to prove a spiritual temple in 2 Thess.2:4.

 

[242006]

The identifier is from verse 26 its ether Jesus or the prince to come. One of them needs to be associated with he in verse 27.

There are two princes 'to come' to choose from -- either Christ or Satan. The one addressed in 9:26 is the one that performs the acts from the remainder of 9:26 through 9:27 up to the 'consummation'. This explains what occurs during the gap in time after the 69th week to the 70th week, which is the church age. As I set forth in prior posts, this 'prince' is none other than Satan.

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.

I explained this before but I will again. We have a tree on the ground Gabriel says cut 70 weeks out for you and your people and your Holy city.

I already pointed out your fatal error regarding your uneducated analysis. The vision is not 70 weeks cut 'out'; but, it is 70 weeks "cut off", which, if you look it up in Strongs', speaks to the end of the people of Israel and the end of the temple mount.

I will post the meaning of 'determined' [9:24] for you again -

H2852

חתך



châthak



khaw-thak'



A primitive root; properly to cut off, that is, (figuratively) to decree: - determine.

​

​

The vision speaks to the end thereof Israel and the temple mount -- not a block of time in the interim. The vision can only end with the end of this flesh dispensation of time.

 

[242006]

I dont deny the prince of 26 is Satan, But He in 27 is Christ not the prince.

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]
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.

 

[bud02]

I would be happy to reply to your checkmate comment, you have checkmated yourself.<br />Im having problems using my IP address it seems to be blocked so Im not going to continue until its resolved. A spoofed IP address doesn\\\\\\\'t allow me the full range of options I have contacted the modes here about the problem and mentioned your demeaning statements throwout your recent reply\\\'s. I would like to continue as soon as the IP problem is resolved.








By the way I posted the meaning of khaw-thak\' many post ago it is referring to the 70 week period as a whole, and the Messiah will be cut off not the week. The description of this word says it all. It again is the fulling of Jesus in the midst of the week the cross. Where He was also cut off from the Father \"why have you forsaken me\"?Cut off 3.5 years after the beginning of the 70th week.

Here\'s the description in 26 for cut.
“ And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; ....................................Just look at all the implication their. Just think Jesus on the cross.

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.


And the first one in 24 the word determined is also cut.
“ Seventy weeks are determined .................That means Gabriel cut a 70 week piece of time out.

2852 chathak khaw-thak\' a primitive root; properly, to cut off, i.e. (figuratively) to decree:--determine.


Your Quote; The vision speaks to the end thereof Israel and the temple mount -- not a block of time in the interim. The vision can only end with the end of this flesh dispensation of time.

The last time I checked 69 was followed by 70. If the prophesy of the 70 weeks started in 457 BC and the 69 week was the coming of Messiah, after 69 weeks that means Gabriel cant count to 70. According to you and most Christian teachers today were still wanting. Messiah is cut off not the 70th week. Is He currently cut off from us right now? because thats what your saying. I think the NT says NO Hes not cut off from us.

I quitting trying to reply I have on way to edit anything, until the IP problem is resolved

 

[bud02]

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.

 

[242006]

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.

You have already been checkmated -- the debate is over.

There is no "he" in the 9:27 manuscripts. Hence, all of 9:27, until the wording "until the consummation", applies to the "prince" of 9:26. Since you also believe the "prince" of 9:26 is Satan, there is no basis in the manuscripts to claim the prior actions of 9:27 belong to to the Messiah.

Dan 9:26/27​

​

​

​

. . . .[sup] the peopleH5971 of the princeH5057 that shall comeH935 shall destroyH7843 the cityH5892 and the sanctuary;H6944 and the endH7093 thereof shall be with a flood,H7858 and untoH5704 the endH7093 of the warH4421 desolationsH8074 are determinedH2782 and shall confirmH1396 the covenantH1285 with manyH7227 for oneH259 weekH7620 and in the midstH2677 of the weekH7620 shall the sacrificeH2077 and the oblationH4503 ceaseH7673 forH5921 the overspreadingH3671 of abominationsH8251 shall desolate,H8074 . . .


​

[/sup]When one deletes all the extraneous nouns and verbs that the translators, without a clue as to context, added, it is easy to see that all applies to the 'prince' of 9:26, which you have acknowledged to be Satan.

It's "ball game" -- we're done! All viewers can see that you have no basis to transfer a portion of these actions to Christ.

 

[bud02]

[sup] [/sup]​

[sup] [/sup] When one deletes all the extraneous nouns and verbs that the translatotors, without a clue as to context, added, it is easy to see that all applies to the 'prince' of 9:26, which you have acknowledged to be Satan.

It's "ball game" -- we're done! All viewers can see that you have no basis to transfer a portion of these actions to Christ.

Well what ever shall we do. I guess you'll just have to petition the writers and translators of the bible and tell them they got it all wrong, there is no he.

As for your Quote " extraneous nouns and verbs that the translatotors, without a clue as to context, added,"
All I can say is thats mans wisdom. And not the wisdom of the Spirit.

[sup]Heres a quote to intellect.

[/sup]“ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
[sup]
20[/sup] Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? [sup]21[/sup] For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

[sup]16[/sup] Every prudent man acts with knowledge,
But a fool lays open his folly.
Have a good day.

 

[242006]

Well what ever shall we do. I guess you'll just have to petition the writers and translators of the bible and tell them they got it all wrong, there is no he.

As for your Quote " extraneous nouns and verbs that the translatotors, without a clue as to context, added,"
All I can say is thats mans wisdom. And not the wisdom of the Spirit.

[sup]Heres a quote to intellect.

[/sup]“ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
[sup]
20[/sup] Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? [sup]21[/sup] For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

[sup]16[/sup] Every prudent man acts with knowledge,
But a fool lays open his folly.
Have a good day.

LOL!! You just proved yourself a 'fool'. You have definitely laid open your folly. Thanks for saving me the time.

The only way you can make a coherent argument in support of your blasphemous beliefs is to maintain that all English Bibles are in error in their rendering of 'prince' in Dan. 9:26. You should be arguing that such entitiy should have been rendered as "Prince" [with a capital 'P'] -- thereby identifying him to be the Messiah. Once you stated that the 'prince' is, indeed, Satan, it is "checkmate", "ball game", fat lady singing, the end, or whatever one wants to describe your defeat. All of the actions thereafter the 'prince to come', in 9:26, to 'until the consummation', in 9:27, apply to the 'prince to come'. There is nothing in the Bible manuscripts which state otherwise.

So, confess and acknowledge your error in true Christian fashion or forever be deemed the Bible hack and heretic that you have demonstrated to be so far.

 

[bud02]

LOL!! You just proved yourself a 'fool'. You have definitely laid open your folly. Thanks for saving me the time.

The only way you can make a coherent argument in support of your blasphemous beliefs is to maintain that all English Bibles are in error in their rendering of 'prince' in Dan. 9:26. You should be arguing that such entitiy should have been rendered as "Prince" [with a capital 'P'] -- thereby identifying him to be the Messiah.

You really need to get a grip on yourself. Its your folly, It is you who maintains that all English translations are in error to support your theology. I have not said nor implied any such thing. You've convince me you suffer from some sort of delusion trying to accuse me of changing what the scriptures say, You continually do this threw out the thread, and now your accusing me of your folly, PLEASE get a grip. And read your quote below.

You have already been checkmated -- the debate is over.

There is no "he" in the 9:27 manuscripts.

When one deletes all the extraneous nouns and verbs that the translators, without a clue as to context, added, it is easy to see that all applies to the 'prince' of 9:26, which you have acknowledged to be Satan.

It's "ball game" -- we're done! All viewers can see that you have no basis to transfer a portion of these actions to Christ.

You accused me of binging like a catholic on the last page. I've debated plenty of knowledgeable catholics, they are really more like you than me. After you have them against the wall with scripture they do like you do, deny the bible, the scriptures, and resort to tradition.

You are no different than the Catholics, whom you deride! When someone informs a Catholic that their interpretation of Mat. 16:18 is incorrect, the Catholic does the ostrich.

You're tradition is to force an interpretation that suits your flavor. You first started by trying to redefine covenant, that didn't work out to well for you ether.

You started out again saying the bible is mistranslated

I have hinted at this before -- much of this prophecy [9:24-27] is mistranslated. The so-called 'covenant' is not a covenant at all -- nor is it with Israel.

And My reply to your hack job on covenant.
http://www.christian...dpost__p__89471


So now you decided to make your case with he in 9-27. Around we went, are here we are, you again claiming that the translators are in error, see your quote above. It seem its the perfect solution for your case each and every time.
Again I'll remind you that most bible teachers / preachers today believe as you do. They use this verse to imply that a 3rd temple needs to be constructed to fulfill it. They teach that this is the 70th week yet future when Anti-christ will make a covenant with Israel. They teach the 7 year tribulation. Non of which can we "you" find scripture to support. Looking at the verse itself, it becomes clear that you have to force such an interpretation. Not to mention none of this can be found in scripture.
And the 4 reasons you 2 can not find scripture to support.
No covenant between Satan and the Jews "Israel" can be found.
No reference to a new Temple building can be found.
No explanation for the use of a day for a year in prophesy. Its used in every other prophesy in the bible, but you DO NOT use it in Revelation. WHY?
No 7 year tribulation can be found in scripture.

Once you stated that the 'prince' is, indeed, Satan, it is "checkmate", "ball game", fat lady singing, the end, or whatever one wants to describe your defeat. All of the actions thereafter the 'prince to come', in 9:26, to 'until the consummation', in 9:27, apply to the 'prince to come'. There is nothing in the Bible manuscripts which state otherwise.

Your statement above, Please provide scriptural support for your interpretation. I have for mine, where as he is Messiah, and the 70th week followed the 69th.
And BTW I have always said that the price was Satan. But he in 27 is the Messiah.
Show me the scriptural evidence for this prince confirming a covenant, or as modern teachers say Make a covenant with Israel. You can't it doesn't exist.
Nor a temple building, or mention of a 7 year trib,

So, confess and acknowledge your error in true Christian fashion or forever be deemed the Bible hack and heretic that you have demonstrated to be so far.

I will say you don't have a leg to stand on, your the one rewriting the bible to suit your interpretation. And I'm supposed to say OK your right, what true Christian would?
Until you can produce some evidence without claiming the bible is in error, all I can do is sit here with my jaw open not believing what I'm reading from you.
I've shown you,,,,,,,,,,,, your the bible hack.
Didn't you understand this statement to be sarcastic.

Well what ever shall we do. I guess you'll just have to petition the writers and translators of the bible and tell them they got it all wrong, there is no he.

Have you not read
Pr 11-2
First comes pride then comes disgrace.
But with humility comes wisdom.

 

[242006]

I will say . . .

It doesn't matter what you say as you have lost this debate. As long as you continue to obfuscate the central issue for which you were called to task on, the more people will know you are nothing but a religious hack and a heretic.

The viewers are not that stupid to not understand the clear fundamental flaw in your religion. It is not feasible to maintain that the 'prince' of Dan. 9:26 is Satan and the inserted English-rendered language of 'he' in 9:27 is the Messiah. We English-speaking Christians base our religion on the Word of God, with full knowledge and understanding that our Bibles are mere translations from the non-English manuscripts. A Christian knows not to make a religion out of the inserted words by the translators. A true Christian knows that the word 'he', in 9:27, does not exist in the actual Word of God. Hence, if the word 'he' is considered at all for clarity, it refers to the last entity that was identified in scripture, which happens to be the 'prince to come'.

Your acknowledgement [of Truth] that the 'prince to come' of 9:26 is Satan has defeated your religion.

Tit 3:10​

​

​

​

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

Tit 3:11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.


​

I have corrected you at least twice and Veteran has corrected you several times as well. We Christians know to reject you, as you are subverted in your religion.

 

[bud02]

A little nostalgia for those that remember

Mission: Impossible

Good Morning Mr. Phelps/ watchman, Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to find a bible translation that does not use the word "he" in Danial 9-27.
After finding such a bible convince us that this translation is usefull for study, teaching, and strives to preserves the original message threw out it context.
As always, should you or any of your IM Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions.
This tape will self-destruct in five seconds.

Get Smart

Hello, Max this is Chief,
Chief? Chief who?
Chief of CONTROL, you idiot, now listen this is real important. We need that evidence on he in Danial 9-27. Is he going to cut a deal or covenant with many for 7 years or not?
And that sacrifice and oblation stuff he would cease, just how is this going to happen. CONTROL is breathing down my neck on this one.
Words getting out that some guy named Jesus already did this stuff right after the 69th week. And that reminds me just how do we explain the 70 week being placed in the future?

Don't worry chief I've got 99 working with a language expert named watchman were getting it all fogged up, and in fact I don't know what to believe any more.
You just tell CONTROL not to worry, we"ll have every body on the right track soon. I mean wrong track, no I'll have them on the wrong right track , right wrong track.

Max just shut up and get me that evidence now.

 

[242006]

Pro 10:23​

​

​

​

It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom.



​

When one's only reply to having their doctrine [tradition of man] proven false is "Get Smart", our God has a label for them. It is 'fool'!

 

[bud02]

I'm glad you have a sense of victory.
The world respects the captain that goes down with his ship
A son of God stands on the firm foundation of the word of God.