Why are some interpreters not being honest with the text involving Daniel 9:27?

[Arthur81]

lol

Yet the very text seperates them

we have the 1st 69 weeks

then messiah is cut off. then the people of the prince who is to come destroy the city, the end of this desolation to be with a flood until war desolations.

THEN we have a future prince confirm a covenant with many

Just because the roman church rejects what the passage says does not mean it was not there and it was not believed by some.

What "roman church" do you mean? The Roman Catholic Church changed century by century! They were not in centuries past, nor today the only church in history. There is a great record showing the growth of false doctrine in the RCC over the centuries. In the online pdf file, in a book about the RCC, starting on page 7 thru page 9, 45 different ideas invented in the RCC starting in AD 300 up thru AD 1965. It is very interesting, regardless of your views on Daniel 9:27. The 402 page book is an expose of the false RCC!

https://www.tlchrist.info/keithgreen/boettner_romancatholocism.pdf

 

[ScottA]

if they could only actually accept that every single thing recorded in verse 27 is something that transpires during the 70th week though

This is logical...you're close.

A gap somewhere in the 70 weeks is the only way to make sense of the text in that case.

This is not logical...and the stumbling block of error.

If the idea is to interpret something correctly, can't see one doing that unless they are honest with the text first, regardless what text it might be involving. Surely you at least agree with that. Actually, everyone should at least agree with that no matter who they are.

Yep, that's the error, again.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

What "roman church" do you mean? The Roman Catholic Church changed century by century! They were not in centuries past, nor today the only church in history. There is a great record showing the growth of false doctrine in the RCC over the centuries. In the online pdf file, in a book about the RCC, starting on page 7 thru page 9, 45 different ideas invented in the RCC starting in AD 300 up thru AD 1965. It is very interesting, regardless of your views on Daniel 9:27. The 402 page book is an expose of the false RCC!

https://www.tlchrist.info/keithgreen/boettner_romancatholocism.pdf

the same roman church who held power until the reformation. who had the power of the state behind them, and are very antisemmetic or anti jew..

It is their doctrine that people follow..

 

[wooddog]

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.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;

I do not see any other way to translate it.

He shall confirm a covenant with many for one week.

Who is he?

the prince who is to come.

What do we know about him? The people from where he comes from destroyed the city (his people) Rome

Name the prince who is to come, do you know?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Name the prince who is to come, do you know?

He has not been revealed yet.. so no one knows his name

 

[Timtofly]

How could our sins be paid if Jesus did nto die.

What hope would we have if we did not see Jesus resurrect?

but non of this matters, The prophet said he would die. So as we see, He died.. fulfilling prophecy

Because cut off does not mean die. Yes Jesus died, but He also left earth, was cut off from those on the earth.

He was not the Prince on the earth as He was the Messiah on the earth, not because He was dead, as you put it, but no longer on the earth as Daniel put it.

Jesus was born after the 69 weeks.

No one seems to understand that there was a 49 year period and a gap, and then a 434 year period and then a gap, and then Jesus was born.

That is what Gabriel told Daniel, so that is what Daniel wrote down. There was not a solid 69 year period mentioned in Daniel 9. Any one claiming that is making up their own private theology, and not listening to God at all.


That is if you can trust any human dates at all. Scripture was not written around human dating and a calendar.

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law."

That is what Paul states in Galatians 4:4

Gabriel never explicitly said Jesus would die. That is inferred. Jesus also left the earth and did not finish the Prince part but was the Prince to come. Jesus said He would return as well.

The reason why Jesus was cut off was never given. Other than to say, it was not for Jesus, but for some other reason.

The whole reason Jesus was cut off and not allowed to be the Pince was for the fulness of the Gentiles. Paul knew that and the timeline you say is wrong is from Paul, so you are saying Paul is wrong in Romans 11.

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

Jesus was cut off, Israel was cut off. The promises in Daniel 9:24 have been placed on hold. The 70th week is not finalized because Jesus has not returned as the Prince yet.

The Prince part is the Second Half of the 70th Week.

Jesus did not leave earth immediately after the 69th week. Jesus was not even born when that 434th year came and went.

"And after threescore and two weeks (434 years) shall Messiah be cut off."


Yes, but Jesus was also born after 434 years. Jesus grew up after 434 years. Jesus was baptized after 434 years. Jesus lived with 12 disciples traveling all over Palestine for 3.5 years after 434 years. Jesus was placed on a Cross after 434 years. Jesus was placed in a tomb after 434 years. Jesus resurrected after 434 years. Jesus even ascended into heaven after 434 years. Jesus did everything on earth after 434 years, except the Prince to come part. That is why "cut off" is the only thing listed that happened to Jesus, even though everything happened after those 434 years.

Gabriel was concise and only let us know that the Prince part was going to be seperate from the Messiah part. And Jesus as both Messiah and Prince is the closest thing to a 70th week described in that chapter. One could have understood at the baptism of Jesus as the anointed one, there would only be 3.5 years left if they understood that part of what Gabriel was saying. No one seemed to have a clue in the first century what a 70th week would even entail. Not even the destruction of 70AD cleared much up. There is no 70th week described the same way as the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks. The term 69 weeks was never mentioned either. To even get your 69 weeks you have to add the two amounts given.

Yet so many declare a solid 70 weeks or a solid 69 weeks. But no one even declares a solid 62 weeks.

Yes, prophecy was fulfilled as the city was again destroyed.

Verse 27 is a shift and not even related, but people still try to force fit verse 27 into the first century. Verse 27 can only reference an event after the Prince to come part has been realized. Because the Prince is the he in that verse, not the Messiah. Messiah being "cut off" would end the Messiah part of the promise that was given. Everything thing mentioned after the "cut off" is about the Prince part Jesus will physically finish in person on the earth, at the Second Coming.

 

[covenantee]

He has not been revealed yet.. so no one knows his name

You don't know the name "Messiah"?

The only individual identified as a prince in the passage.

 

[Davidpt]

You don't know the name "Messiah"?

The only individual identified as a prince in the passage.

KJV
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.


A) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself

B) and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.


Obviously, A) happens before B) happens. I doubt anyone would dispute that. In order for A) to happen the Prince has to have already arrived first. Can't be cut off if He hasn't even arrived yet.

B) is different, though. The text indicates that a prince in the future shall come after a prince in the past has already been cut off. The text should be understood like such. Another prince shall come sometime later after a prince already came earlier and was then cut off, and that the people of this prince that shall come in the future after a prince was already cut off earlier in the past, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

Then on top of that, the KJV translation I have, it is obvious that even the translators didn't take the prince in verse 26 to mean the same prince in verse 25, otherwise they would have said in verse 26 at least this---and the people of the Prince that shall come---instead of---and the people of the prince that shall come. After all, the translators did say this in verse 25---the Messiah the Prince--and not this instead---the Messiah the prince


My translation says this in verse 26---that shall come shall. The text does not say this---and the people of the prince shall come---it says this----and the people of the prince that shall come. IOW, that 'that' makes a difference since the people of the prince that shall come is not the same thing as saying the people of the prince shall come when we factor in A) first, that a prince already came, and not shall come, as in the future, which is what all of B) is involving, the future in relation to A), thus A) then involving the past . At least from the perspective of the KJV translators since that is how they translated this verse.

 

[Davidpt]

Sometimes I just wonder what is the point, why I even bother making threads like this one? Can't even get anyone on the same page with me. No one wants to be objective about anything that might support that there is a gap somewhere in the 70 weeks. For example. Everyone wants to understand the following one way and one way only, that it is pertaining to what happened in 70 AD. Where, IMO, can support there being a gap in the 70 weeks if one could quit insisting that part in verse 26 can only be understood in one way and one way only, that being in the literal sense.

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined(Daniel 9:25)

IOW, 'destroy' in that verse can only be understood in a literal sense which then fits what happened in 70 AD. Thus, only 70 AD can be meant. Yet, 'destroy' isn't always meaning in a literal sense involving buildings and literal cities and things of that nature every single time.


Yet that part that I just submitted fits with this part in verse 26.

and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate(Daniel 9:26)

Which then looks like this.

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate

Let's break this down a bit. The 'he' meant in this part--and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate---is explained by this part---the prince that shall come

There are also people of this prince that shall come, and that there is a city and sanctuary they set out to destroy. When Daniel ch 9 was written, obviously the NT had not been written yet, especially the book of Revelation. If we then go to the book of Revelation and then try and be objective here rather than always taking things in the literal sense all the time pertaining to verse 26 in Daniel 9, maybe just maybe something in the book of Revelation reveals who the people of the prince that shall come are, what city and sanctuary they set out to destroy, and who the prince that is to come is meaning.

Before I get to that, we then run into this roadblock. Since I will be bringing up Revelation 11:1-2, that it helps explain Daniel 9:26, Preterists might even agree since they typically take Revelation 11:1-2 to be involving the city and temple in the 1st century prior to both being destroyed. So, there you go then, does not 9:26 also involve a city and temple that gets destroyed? Except some of us though, those of us with descent discernment in regards to those 2 verses are not even remotely going to take the city and the sanctuary in Revelation 11:1-2 in the literal sense.

Revelation 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.


Not only have we identified the city and sanctuary meant in Daniel 9:26, we have also identified who the ppl of the future prince that set out to destroy the city and sanctuary are---for it is given unto the Gentiles. And not only that we have also discovered how long they persist doing this---and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

There is still the matter of a prince that shall come. Let's go to Revelation 17 for a moment then

Revelation 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space(apparently, meaning 42 months)

There is the prince that shall come. But let's continue insisting that Daniel 9:26 can only be involving 70 AD instead, case closed. That way we don't have to admit there are any gaps in the 70 weeks, thus in our minds we continue to win the argument because nothing anywhere in the entire Bible supports that there could be a gap anywhere in the 70 weeks.

Decided to edit this post to make it a bit clearer as to what I ultimately meant. Keeping in mind that I made this post right after I made the previous post where I was arguing about this, per verse 26---and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Daniel 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.


Anyone being honest with the text is going to take this entire verse to be pertaining to the 70th week, then interpret it based on that.

Please stop your nonsense. Interpreting the text differently from you is not a case of being dishonest with the text. There is absolutely nothing in the text to demand that everything in that verse has to occur during the 70th week. Nothing! You have shown many times that you are unable to reconcile your interpretation of that verse with the rest of scripture, so why don't you try being honest about that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sometimes I just wonder what is the point, why I even bother making threads like this one? Can't even get anyone on the same page with me.

I wonder the same. Why you assume that anyone should be on the same page as you is beyond me.

No one wants to be objective about anything.

That is an absolute lie. If you're going to make ridiculous comments like this, then you should not expect anyone to be on the same page as you. Try having an adult discussion without lying about people supposedly not being objective about it and see how it goes. Stop judging people.

Everyone wants to understand the following one way and one way only, that it is pertaining to what happened in 70 AD.

Are you not understanding it one way and one way only, also? Of course you are. So, stop wasting time with these kinds of comments.

 

[covenantee]

Then on top of that, the KJV translation I have, it is obvious that even the translators didn't take the prince in verse 26 to mean the same prince in verse 25, otherwise they would have said in verse 26 at least this---and the people of the Prince that shall come---instead of---and the people of the prince that shall come. After all, the translators did say this in verse 25---the Messiah the Prince--and not this instead---the Messiah the prince

Original 1611 KJV.

Daniel 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.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

If you at least agree that some of that has been accomplished, just not all of it, that might mean you and I are on the same page to some degree. That aside.

One thing in particular that makes it crystal clear per the verse you submitted, that the entire 70 weeks haven't been fulfilled yet, is this.


Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression

I would think the holy city is meaning Jerusalem. Imagine that the 70 weeks have been fulfilled, which would then equal this---upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression---thus it is finished, then 40 years later this same Jerusalam is attacked and destroyed. Does that sound like the transgression involving the holy city was finished? If it was, it seems to me that one reason why Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD was because of transgressions, and not, because of transgressions having been finished involving it. The latter makes zero sense. No one could possibly think that it makes sense that the reason Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD is because the transgression pertaining to it was finished 40 years earlier.

That would be like someone committing a crime, then getting arrested, judged then sentenced, let's say 10 years in prison, they then serving out that term, then some years later they are once again being punished for this same crime they already paid in full by serving out 10 years in prison.

What I see based on the verse as written is that nothing of the purpose of the 70th week as told by the angel to Daniel has been fulfilled

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

 

[Davidpt]

There is absolutely nothing in the text to demand that everything in that verse has to occur during the 70th week. Nothing!

Including what I just posted in #49 doesn't manage to do that either, right? As if 'destroy' in Daniel 9:26 can only mean in the literal sense involving literal buildings, etc.

 

[Davidpt]

Original 1611 KJV.

Daniel 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.

I don't dispute that some translations might render it that way. I was referring to the one I was using in particular, that it at least showed that these particular translators didn't take both the prince in verse 25 and the prince in verse 26 to be one and the same, for the reasons I argued.

 

[covenantee]

I don't dispute that some translations might render it that way. I was referring to the one I was using in particular, that it at least showed that these particular translators didn't take both the prince in verse 25 and the prince in verse 26 to be one and the same, for the reasons I argued.

It's not just "some translations". It's the original KJV against which others should be judged.

King James got it right.

Messiah is the only Prince in the passage.

 

[Davidpt]

I wonder the same. Why you assume that anyone should be on the same page as you is beyond me.

If you are going to quote something I said, quote it in context, since you are not being honest by quoting it like you just did, then calling me a liar on top of that. It gives the wrong impression that I don't think anyone is being objective about anything period, no matter what it might involve. Here is what I said in context-----Sometimes I just wonder what is the point, why I even bother making threads like this one? Can't even get anyone on the same page with me. No one wants to be objective about anything. Everyone wants to understand the following one way and one way only, that it is pertaining to what happened in 70 AD.


But all you saw was this part---No one wants to be objective about anything

Clearly, undeniably, since I know what I said and I know what I meant, I was applying that to mainly this---Everyone wants to understand the following one way and one way only, that it is pertaining to what happened in 70 AD. That's what I felt no one is being objective about, they want to be closed minded instead because in their mind, 'destroy' in Daniel 9:26 can only be understood one way and one way only, and that is in the literal sense. Therefore, it pertains to what happened in 70 AD, case closed. Notice what I didn't say, though. I didn't say---because in their mind, 'destroy' can only be understood one way and one way only, and that is in the literal sense. Not what I said. I said this instead---because in their mind, 'destroy' in Daniel 9:26 can only be understood one way and one way only, and that is in the literal sense

Who cares if anything pertaining to Revelation 11:1-2 can fit Daniel 9:26, right? But not the way Preterists might understand those verses, nor how Pretribbers might understand those verses, but how you and I might understand those verses, that it is not involving a literal city and a literal sanctuary, and the text then saying----and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. Which then sounds like that could maybe equal this to me---and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

But look at who I am dealing with here. Someone that can't even grasp that the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15 is not meaning the 2nd temple in the first century, it is instead involving the same temple 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving.

 

[Davidpt]

It's not just "some translations". It's the original KJV against which others should be judged.

King James got it right.

Messiah is the only Prince in the passage.

And what about what I argued over all? Why isn't that relevant, regardless?

 

[covenantee]

And what about what I argued over all? Why isn't that relevant, regardless?

Certainly it's relevant. But it's also very useful to resolve one issue at a time. We've resolved what King James believed.

When Daniel refers to "the Prince that shall come", was Messiah the Prince who did come, some 535 years after Daniel prophesied that He would?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Because cut off does not mean die. Yes Jesus died, but He also left earth, was cut off from those on the earth.

He was not the Prince on the earth as He was the Messiah on the earth, not because He was dead, as you put it, but no longer on the earth as Daniel put it.

Jesus was born after the 69 weeks.

No one seems to understand that there was a 49 year period and a gap, and then a 434 year period and then a gap, and then Jesus was born.

That is what Gabriel told Daniel, so that is what Daniel wrote down. There was not a solid 69 year period mentioned in Daniel 9. Any one claiming that is making up their own private theology, and not listening to God at all.


That is if you can trust any human dates at all. Scripture was not written around human dating and a calendar.

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law."

That is what Paul states in Galatians 4:4

Gabriel never explicitly said Jesus would die. That is inferred. Jesus also left the earth and did not finish the Prince part but was the Prince to come. Jesus said He would return as well.

The reason why Jesus was cut off was never given. Other than to say, it was not for Jesus, but for some other reason.

The whole reason Jesus was cut off and not allowed to be the Pince was for the fulness of the Gentiles. Paul knew that and the timeline you say is wrong is from Paul, so you are saying Paul is wrong in Romans 11.

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

Jesus was cut off, Israel was cut off. The promises in Daniel 9:24 have been placed on hold. The 70th week is not finalized because Jesus has not returned as the Prince yet.

The Prince part is the Second Half of the 70th Week.

Jesus did not leave earth immediately after the 69th week. Jesus was not even born when that 434th year came and went.

"And after threescore and two weeks (434 years) shall Messiah be cut off."


Yes, but Jesus was also born after 434 years. Jesus grew up after 434 years. Jesus was baptized after 434 years. Jesus lived with 12 disciples traveling all over Palestine for 3.5 years after 434 years. Jesus was placed on a Cross after 434 years. Jesus was placed in a tomb after 434 years. Jesus resurrected after 434 years. Jesus even ascended into heaven after 434 years. Jesus did everything on earth after 434 years, except the Prince to come part. That is why "cut off" is the only thing listed that happened to Jesus, even though everything happened after those 434 years.

Gabriel was concise and only let us know that the Prince part was going to be seperate from the Messiah part. And Jesus as both Messiah and Prince is the closest thing to a 70th week described in that chapter. One could have understood at the baptism of Jesus as the anointed one, there would only be 3.5 years left if they understood that part of what Gabriel was saying. No one seemed to have a clue in the first century what a 70th week would even entail. Not even the destruction of 70AD cleared much up. There is no 70th week described the same way as the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks. The term 69 weeks was never mentioned either. To even get your 69 weeks you have to add the two amounts given.

Yet so many declare a solid 70 weeks or a solid 69 weeks. But no one even declares a solid 62 weeks.

Yes, prophecy was fulfilled as the city was again destroyed.

Verse 27 is a shift and not even related, but people still try to force fit verse 27 into the first century. Verse 27 can only reference an event after the Prince to come part has been realized. Because the Prince is the he in that verse, not the Messiah. Messiah being "cut off" would end the Messiah part of the promise that was given. Everything thing mentioned after the "cut off" is about the Prince part Jesus will physically finish in person on the earth, at the Second Coming.

To much to even get into

the fact that it said ther would be 69 weeks until messiah the prince proves your first premise (he was born after the 69th week) in error., no need to even look further