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

[Eternally Grateful]

You don't know the name "Messiah"?

The only individual identified as a prince in the passage.

This is error also

then people of the prince who is to come destroy the city

Thats a roman prince.. An d ity comes after messiah is already here.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

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.

Yes look at it

Messiah the prince will be cut off

then the people of the prince who SHALL COME (A future prince, Messiah wsas already cut off, and rome destroyed the city and sanctuary in. 70 AD. Almost 4 decades after messiah was cut off.

It did not say the people of the messiah will destroy the city.. it was not the jews, it was the romans.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

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.

Wrong,, not even in the KJV you used is this true

 

[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.

Let's look at it from this angle then. Let's assume the prince in verse 26 is meaning Christ. And let's assume 70 AD is meant. Already there is a problem with this interpretation, where I can show the issue per the following.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Obviously, His own are meaning His ppl the Jews. Name one person who would take His own to be meaning the Romans in this verse? That means if we make Christ the one meant in verse 26, His people have to be meaning the Jews in that case, since it is ludicrous that His ppl can be the Romans. Because if they can the same has to be true in John 1:11 as well.

It would not be incorrect to understand John 1:11 like such---- He came unto his people, and his people received him not. As long as we understand correctly who His ppl are meaning here. And once again, no one would take it to mean the people of the Prince He came unto, the people of the Prince that received Him not, that these are meaning the Romans. How then is it reasonable that the Romans can be meaning His ppl in Daniel 9:26 then?

You might argue that they are not meaning His ppl in the same sense they are meaning His ppl in John 1:11. They are simply meaning a people He used to destroy the city and temple in 70 AD, thus the Romans. Except it sounds like to me, whoever is meant by the prince in Daniel 9:26, his ppl are meaning his followers, and clearly the Romans weren't Christ's followers. IOW, John 1:11 should be understood as ethnicity, and that Daniel 9:26 should be understood as followers, someone that has high regard for the prince meant, which the Romans certainty didn't if Christ is meant.

On a different note since it is not only those that deny a gap that believe verse 26 involves 70 AD, so do those that don't deny a gap believe the same thing. The latter not being logical because they are not destroying the city and sanctuary before the prince that is meant has come, they are doing it after he has already arrived. How can they do that, destroy both places after he has already arrived, if one has them doing that 2000 years before he arrives? Why would something that allegedly happened 2000 years earlier be relevant to something that happens 2000 years later?

 

[covenantee]

This is error also

then people of the prince who is to come destroy the city

Thats a roman prince.. An d ity comes after messiah is already here.

You're in error. The only Prince in the passage is Messiah.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You're in error. The only Prince in the passage is Messiah.

whatever..

I know how to read.. your in error.. Stay in error. thats your right.

 

[covenantee]

Yes look at it

Messiah the prince will be cut off

then the people of the prince who SHALL COME (A future prince, Messiah wsas already cut off, and rome destroyed the city and sanctuary in. 70 AD. Almost 4 decades after messiah was cut off.

It did not say the people of the messiah will destroy the city.. it was not the jews, it was the romans.

Messiah the Prince didn't stay cut off. Remember?

He arose. Remember?

He returned to Heaven. Remember?

Then 40 years later He, Messiah the Prince, destroyed Jerusalem and Israel, using the Roman armies (Luke 21:20) as His people to bring judgment and desolation upon the city and the nation.

You don't remember, because Jesuit futurism does not believe Scripture and history.

 

[covenantee]

whatever..

I know how to read.. your in error.. Stay in error. thats your right.

You know how to imagine and misspell. That's all.

 

[covenantee]

Let's look at it from this angle then. Let's assume the prince in verse 26 is meaning Christ. And let's assume 70 AD is meant. Already there is a problem with this interpretation, where I can show the issue per the following.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Obviously, His own are meaning His ppl the Jews. Name one person who would take His own to be meaning the Romans in this verse? That means if we make Christ the one meant in verse 26, His people have to be meaning the Jews in that case, since it is ludicrous that His ppl can be the Romans. Because if they can the same has to be true in John 1:11 as well.

It would not be incorrect to understand John 1:11 like such---- He came unto his people, and his people received him not. As long as we understand correctly who His ppl are meaning here. And once again, no one would take it to mean the people of the Prince He came unto, the people of the Prince that received Him not, that these are meaning the Romans. How then is it reasonable that the Romans can be meaning His ppl in Daniel 9:26 then?

You might argue that they are not meaning His ppl in the same sense they are meaning His ppl in John 1:11. They are simply meaning a people He used to destroy the city and temple in 70 AD, thus the Romans. Except it sounds like to me, whoever is meant by the prince in Daniel 9:26, his ppl are meaning his followers, and clearly the Romans weren't Christ's followers. IOW, John 1:11 should be understood as ethnicity, and that Daniel 9:26 should be understood as followers, someone that has high regard for the prince meant, which the Romans certainty didn't if Christ is meant.

On a different note since it is not only those that deny a gap that believe verse 26 involves 70 AD, so do those that don't deny a gap believe the same thing. The latter not being logical because they are not destroying the city and sanctuary before the prince that is meant has come, they are doing it after he has already arrived. How can they do that, destroy both places after he has already arrived, if one has them doing that 2000 years before he arrives? Why would something that allegedly happened 2000 years earlier be relevant to something that happens 2000 years later?

The Roman armies served as the people of Messiah the Prince to accomplish His purposes of judgment and destruction upon Jerusalem and Israel.

As the Roman commander Titus recognized, "We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men or any machines do towards overthrowing these towers?" (The Wars of the Jews, 6.9.1)

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

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.

IOW...

This part---And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week--is involving the 70th week.

This part---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--is involving the 70th week.

This part---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.--is involving the 70th week.

Therefore, it is impossible, thus unreasonable, to interpret this verse in such a manner where it involves no gap whatsoever.

To illustrate this, let's assume this part--and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--is what Christ did on the cross in the middle of the 70th week.

If there are no gaps anywhere, that means this part---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate---is entirely fulfilled within 3.5 years of Christ having died on the cross. Totally preposterous that that part can fit like that. The way many interpreters try and get around this is by being dishonest with the text, that some of it, particularly that part, is meaning outside of the 70th week, not during it.

That would be like arguing that verse 25 is not pertaining to the first 69 weeks. Some of it is pertaining to events outside of the first 69 weeks. Yet no one I'm aware of, regardless what their position is, pertaining to the 70 weeks, would argue in that manner per verse 25. Why do they argue in that manner per verse 27 then? Maybe because they are being dishonest with the text, thus place their interpretation above the text, rather than actually agreeing with the text.

As to this part in question---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate---there are ways to interpret that without having to take it in a literal sense. Clearly, if one is applying that part to 70 AD, not only would it be outside of the 70 weeks, it would be being taken in the literal sense per that interpretation since 70 AD involved literal events.

But if we apply that part to 2 Thessalonians 2:4 instead and what all that involves, now we are no longer obligated to take that part in a literal sense. Not unless you are a Preterist or a Pretribber. Thankfully, not all of us are either of those.

I have a different perspective.
Daniel 9: 24-27 is about Jesus 1st Coming.
"Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city, ..."
This a precise timeline about Jesus' 1st Coming _ ordained by God, delievered by Gabriel to Daniel. God didn't change His mind and add 2000 years! There is No Gap in the prophecy. The last week wasn't finished, didn't have to be. It was inclusive.

"To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,"
> For the believer, Jesus did.
"To make reconciliation for iniquity,"
> He did we have been reconciled.
"To bring in everlasting righteousness,"
> He did spiritually, though sin remains in the world.
"To seal up vision and prophecy",
> His death and resurrection fulfilled prophecy and when He ascended into Heaven, He received the scroll with seven seals. So in heaven it is considered a done deal.
"And to anoint the Most Holy.'
> Jesus

“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;"
> Jesus shows up after the 69 weeks, not during, but in the beginning of the 70th week.

“And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;"
> After means in the 70th week!
"And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."
> This is just an allusion to 70 AD, a parenthethical citation not within the 70 weeks timeline.
"The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined."
> Also alluding to the destruction /desolation of Jerusalem.

Now back to the Messiah, whom the whole context is about.
27 "Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;"
> Jesus brought the New Covenant in the 70th week
"But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering."
> Jesus ended sacrifice and offering. He was the final sacrifice.
"And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,"
> His torture and crucifixion was an abomination. He pronounced the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem.
"Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”
> Another parenthetical citation referring to the spiritually desolate Jews, who in the end times will receive the consummation - the Holy Spirt as stated in Rom.11.
The only Gap I see is in the Mall - I shop there sometimes.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

What are you talking about? Daniel 9:27 refers to the 70th week when Jesus confirmed the new covenant with His blood which made an end of the need for the old covenant animal sacrifices and offerings and also refers to things that would happen later as a result of what happened in the 70th week.

Your claim that everything described in the verse has to occur during the 70th week doesn't hold water. The result of the Jews rejecting Jesus and having Him crucified was that their temple was made spiritually desolate which it remained until the consummation of the temple being physically destroyed in 70 AD.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

Wrong. I know what you meant and I responded accordingly. It is a lie that "no one wants to be objective about anything" in relation to the topic at hand. I was not understanding you to be talking about no one being objective about literally 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.

I already know that this is what you meant and I again say that this is a lie. That is simply not true at all. Just because someone disagrees with you on this does not mean they are not being objective about it. That is ridiculous.

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.

Yet, the holy place that existed at the time Jesus was speaking in Matthew 24:15 was the 2nd temple in the first century. So, that is what He was referring to. Whether it would still be considered the holy place or not when His prophecy came about is irrelevant, but you try to make it relevant, anyway. If you can't even grasp that Jesus was talking about the second temple there in response to Him having said a little earlier that it would be physically destroyed, what can you grasp? Then there's the matter of the parallel passage in Luke 21:20-24 which gives us more insight into what Jesus was saying in Matthew 24:15-21, but you inexplicably deny that those are parallel passages even though they so clearly are.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Messiah the Prince didn't stay cut off. Remember?

He arose. Remember?

He returned to Heaven. Remember?

Then 40 years later He, Messiah the Prince, destroyed Jerusalem and Israel, using the Roman armies (Luke 21:20) as His people to bring judgment and desolation upon the city and the nation.

You don't remember, because Jesuit futurism does not believe Scripture and history.

wrong

Study the Bible especially prophecy as a whole. Then come talk to me.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You know how to imagine and misspell. That's all.

If anyone here is imagining anything it is you my friend

Messiah did not rise from the dead as a prince, he rose as king.

He did not destroy Jerusalem. Rome did.

and when the final gentile beast takes power and ushers in the great tribulation, which will be Ind blowing and so severe that no flesh would survive unless Christ returned,

people who deny futurism will be repenting.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I have a different perspective.
Daniel 9: 24-27 is about Jesus 1st Coming.
"Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city, ..."
This a precise timeline about Jesus' 1st Coming _ ordained by God, delievered by Gabriel to Daniel. God didn't change His mind and add 2000 years! There is No Gap in the prophecy. The last week wasn't finished, didn't have to be. It was inclusive.

"To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,"
> For the believer, Jesus did.
"To make reconciliation for iniquity,"
> He did we have been reconciled.
"To bring in everlasting righteousness,"
> He did spiritually, though sin remains in the world.
"To seal up vision and prophecy",
> His death and resurrection fulfilled prophecy and when He ascended into Heaven, He received the scroll with seven seals. So in heaven it is considered a done deal.
"And to anoint the Most Holy.'
> Jesus

“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;"
> Jesus shows up after the 69 weeks, not during, but in the beginning of the 70th week.

“And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;"
> After means in the 70th week!
"And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."
> This is just an allusion to 70 AD, a parenthethical citation not within the 70 weeks timeline.
"The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined."
> Also alluding to the destruction /desolation of Jerusalem.

Now back to the Messiah, whom the whole context is about.
27 "Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;"
> Jesus brought the New Covenant in the 70th week
"But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering."
> Jesus ended sacrifice and offering. He was the final sacrifice.
"And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,"
> His torture and crucifixion was an abomination. He pronounced the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem.
"Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”
> Another parenthetical citation referring to the spiritually desolate Jews, who in the end times will receive the consummation - the Holy Spirt as stated in Rom.11.
The only Gap I see is in the Mall - I shop there sometimes.

1. Jesus came at the end of the 69th week
2. Jesus was cut off after (in Hebrews, the term after literally means something that comes soon after or the next in line)

the next event is the destruction of Jerusalem almost 40 years later.

here we have a gap between the 69th week and the destruction of the city and sanctuary. So for someone to say there is no gap in beyond me, when it is right there in the text.. If the 70 weeks ended 3.5 years after Jesus was cut off like may insist. Then there is no need to even mention the city being destroyed. Or the abomination of desolation (literally an Idol (unlclean thing) placed int he holy place. Which Jesus said in matt 24 they would see STANDING IN THE HOLY PLACE.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

What are you talking about? Daniel 9:27 refers to the 70th week when Jesus confirmed the new covenant with His blood which made an end of the need for the old covenant animal sacrifices and offerings and also refers to things that would happen later as a result of what happened in the 70th week.

No

The prophet said sacrifice and burnt offering would CEASE! Thats what an abomination of desolation does. It makes the holy place unclean, and stops sacrifice and burnt offering. We have an example of Antiochus epiphanies who slaughtered a pig in the holy place, which put an end to sacrifice and burnt offering because it was unclean now. It lied desolate..

What would happen at the end of the 70th week is this

24 “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.

Look at who it is written to. It is concerning DANIELS PEOPLE (Israel) and the Holy City (jerusalem)

1. Israel has not yet finished its transgression it is still in sin even today
2. Israel is still committing her sins, She is not even worshiping the true temple sight, she is worshiping the wall of the fortress Antonia, which is a mocker of herself and God
3. Her iniquity is still not reconciled, she is still dispersed according to Lev 26 because of her many sins, as she has yet to repent, according to lev 26
4. There is still prophecy to be fufilled. John gave us deeper inspite in Rev about what would happen at the end, Non of those things have happened yet.

I can go on and on and on.

Your claim that everything described in the verse has to occur during the 70th week doesn't hold water. The result of the Jews rejecting Jesus and having Him crucified was that their temple was made spiritually desolate which it remained until the consummation of the temple being physically destroyed in 70 AD.

Where does this thinking come from???

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Wrong. I know what you meant and I responded accordingly. It is a lie that "no one wants to be objective about anything" in relation to the topic at hand. I was not understanding you to be talking about no one being objective about literally anything.


I already know that this is what you meant and I again say that this is a lie. That is simply not true at all. Just because someone disagrees with you on this does not mean they are not being objective about it. That is ridiculous.


Yet, the holy place that existed at the time Jesus was speaking in Matthew 24:15 was the 2nd temple in the first century. So, that is what He was referring to. Whether it would still be considered the holy place or not when His prophecy came about is irrelevant, but you try to make it relevant, anyway. If you can't even grasp that Jesus was talking about the second temple there in response to Him having said a little earlier that it would be physically destroyed, what can you grasp? Then there's the matter of the parallel passage in Luke 21:20-24 which gives us more insight into what Jesus was saying in Matthew 24:15-21, but you inexplicably deny that those are parallel passages even though they so clearly are.

Again, Lets look at matt 24 openly

the disciples asked 3 questions

1. When will these things be, (the destruction of the temple which occured in 70 AD)
2. What will be the sign of your return
3. What will be the signs of the end of the age

Matt 24: Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

The destruction is the 1st thing in line, and in matt account he does not even mention the destruction of the city, He does however answer the first 2.

1. He speaks and says many false christ’s will come
2. he ways there will be wars and rumors of wars Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom
3. There will be famines, disease, and natural disasters (earthquakes) in many places. And like birth pangs, they will exponentially get worse and worse.
even after all these things, the end is not yet. He gave them as a witness so we can know that the end is coming soon.

He then speaks of this tribulation. Where the love of many will grow cold. Again many false christs, families will even turn on each others. Yet in all this, the gospel will still be preached to the whole world.

He then says once this gospel message is worldwide, sent to every nation on earth THEN the end will come

he then gives a warning

when you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (this is the same one mentioned in Dan 9) let the read understand, run!!!! Then there will be great tribulation as not been seen on earth before or after. It will be so severe that if Jesus does not put an end to it, no flesh on earth would survive.But for the sake of the elect. he will put an end to it (He who endures to the end will survive)

Then he tells HOW he will come

27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.

The Coming of the Son of Man​

29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His [d]elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

We are talking about years and years of things happening, before we even get to this tribulation period (birth pangs). Then a great tribulation so severe, if jesus does not return, al life on earth will go extinct (the result of mans carelessness, greed and destruction) so Jesus comes to earth and puts an end to mans rule (the time of the gentile is not been fulfilled and completed)

if we say we are open. Lets be open and consider these things

 

[wooddog]

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.

Why did you stop at verse 10? Rev. 17;11 tells you Satan is coming as the eighth head of the beast (THE FALSE MESSIAH) ruler of the seven headed beast and the zionists goal. Satan was and will not be, his end is predetermined. (His people) are always ready to do his bidding.

 

[Davidpt]

Why did you stop at verse 10? Rev. 17;11 tells you Satan is coming as the eighth head of the beast (THE FALSE MESSIAH) ruler of the seven headed beast and the zionists goal. Satan was and will not be, his end is predetermined. (His people) are always ready to do his bidding.

I was mainly just showing who I felt the prince to come in Daniel 9:26 was meaning. Of course that includes verse 11 since it is obviously connected to verse 10. I don't know why some interpreters insist they always interpret Scripture with Scripture when I'm not seeing any evidence of that when it comes to the following text.

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.


As if there is nothing in the book of Revelation having to do with abominations and something abominable. As if only 70 AD can explain any of that, lol. Except there were no abominations pertaining to 70 AD, that's the problem. That's what happens when you don't use Scripture to interpret Scripture, you end up arriving at absurd conclusions concerning the text, that it is involving the first century and 70 AD, not anything recorded in Matthew 24:15-21 involving the future, not anything recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and certainly not anything recorded in the book of Revelation, so on and so on.

Revelation 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.


As you can see, nothing involving anything abominable here----not. I guess 70 AD explains these verses as well?

I don't know where all of these interpreters who insist they are not Preterists, yet possess the same mindset as Preterists, come from, thinking they can tell me I have no case here that all of Daniel 9:27 involves the 70th week, none of it is meaning outside of the 70th week? Everything pertaining to this subject, such as Matthew 24:15-21, Daniel 9:26-27, has to be about 70 AD to them. None of it can involve what I just submitted from Revelation 17 above, nor can it involve 2 Thessalonians 2:4, it can only involve the first century and 70 AD to these interpreters who are not even Preterists yet possess the same mindset as Preterists when it comes to this subject.

 

[Davidpt]

if we say we are open. Lets be open and consider these things

Who do you think pertaining to those posting in this thread that reject a gap in the 70 weeks are open about any of these things? All I see are closed minded people, not someone that might be open to the idea that they might be wrong about some of these things.