I think you just quote things from others, and do not understand what you are citing.
Have you considered Matthew 18:22 as translated into Hebrew,
"שבעים ושבע";
"שִׁבְעִים וָשֶׁבַע"(Salkinson-Ginsburg; Dalman-Delitzsch)? Which matches Daniel 9:24,
"שָׁבֻעִים שִׁבְעִים"? Just as I stated they paralleled?
What about Genesis 4:24,
"שִׁבְעִים וְשִׁבְעָה"?
Do you know that
John Walvoord is specifically mentioned in the Jesuit-Futurism page I earlier cited? -
The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism
Theodore Kliefoth was a (neo) Lutheran (see also commentary in the Berlenberger Bible).
Carl Freidrich Keil was another Lutheran (German) commentator (student of German Lutheran E. W. Henstengberg), who in tandem with Delitzsch applied Daniel 9:25-27 to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (see commentary of Keil and Delitzsch on Daniel 9:24) as a mere type, of which, according to them, is to have another fulfillment in a future 'reality' Antichrist that will fully do what Antiochus IV Epiphanes only did in type.
In such commentary, it is stated,
"... Hofmann and Kliefoth are in the right when they remark that שָׁבֻעִים does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, whose chronological duration must be determined on other grounds. ...", but notice, that in so saying, this places the entire number into nebulous nothing. It makes of all the numbers into an unknown, unspecified 'future', whose landing is now entirely uncertain, having no solid numbers to speak, since they just stated that the 70, and yea also 7 are merely representational, and then so also the 3 1/2 and 3 1/2 of the final "7". It is all imaginary then, and to claim that the final "7" (one week) is not as the first "7" before the "62" is simply wishful thinking and begging the question.
Their entire commentary on this is their own speculation, and their own presuppositions.
Yet, there were many of their own (Lutherans, Germans, Commentators) and in their day which disagreed with them, and they cite as such(those who disagreed with them) in their commentary, saying,
"... That by this word common years are to be understood, is indeed taken for granted by many interpreters. ...". Why take their opinion over others (as cited here and in their own commentary) their equal, or even better? For instance, the Genevan Bible in its notation states,
"(p) He alludes to Jeremiah's prophecy, who prophesied that their captivity would be seventy years: but now God's mercy would exceed his judgment seven times as much, which would be 490 years, even until the coming of Christ, and so then it would continue forever."
Hengstenberg (German Lutheran) stated that the 70 7's, were
“concealed definiteness”, not indefiniteness as Keil and Kliefoth.
Even Bullinger stated,
"... The whole period is therefore 490 years. ..."
Why not just go with the plain text before us?
What is amazing, that such commentary as above, even agrees with the definition I cited previous on the word "determined" -
" ... The ἁπ. λεγ. חָתַךְ means in Chald. to cut off, to cut up into pieces, then to decide, to determine closely, e.g., Targ. Est_4:5; cf. ..."
More interesting is that the same commentary says, "... seventy sevenths are to be viewed as a whole,
as a continued period of seventy seven times following each other. ..." and they do not mention any 'gaps', but just cited their nebulous 70 x 7 as a "whole", each "7" "following each other".