Daniel's 9:26 & 27: what is the Author's intent?

[iamlamad]

7 hours ago, Spock said:

I am so glad to see your name back on this board iamlamad because you have always been a blessing for me to read.  This post here is just another example of your clear thinking and analysis of a passage that has been abused and misused. 

Why people want to take something fairly obvious and convolute it is beyond me. If one misses the peace treaty or covenant with many, you won't miss the abomination of desolation. It will slap you in the face when it occurs. And of course, Jesus cautioned us about this event, especially for those living in Judaea. 

I hope you post more thread starters. 

Spock out

Thanks.

[iamlamad]

8 hours ago, inchrist said:

Where does jesus state an antichrist cuts a covenant between jews and God?

The fact Christ only mentions the latter half of daniel 9:27b swings in my faviour of ONLY the latter half of 9:27b is in the future. 

First, we must remember that Jesus is the Author of the whole bible. So in effect, He used Daniel to write, He used Paul to write, and used John to write much later.

When Jesus warned of an abomination, Matthew 24:15, He was only repeating what Daniel had written about the abomination. He did not repeat the entire verse; He only spoke of the abomination. That will be the visible thing that they will see instantly and can flee just as quickly.  No one might know that the Daily sacrifices were stopped until the next morning. They had to flee NOW - not a second to lose.

Why try to form a doctrine leaving out critical verses? That would be silly if we have them, and we do. We can put together what Daniel wrote, what Paul wrote, and what Jesus said, and get a much clearer picture. Then when we SEE that much clearer picture written in Revelation, it is just confirmation we have formed the right theory of Daniel 9:26 & 27.

Daniel tells us there will be an abomination, and that the daily sacrifices will stop. (Not did stop!) Your theory fails already! Daniel further tells us that whatever it is that stops the daily sacrifices will also divide the week into two halves. Jesus tells us this abomination event will be in the end of the age. Paul tells us what this abomination will be: the moment someone other than the High Priest enters the most holy place in the temple, the daily sacrifices MUST STOP. the Temple will have to be cleansed. Your theory fails again. There will be an ENTIRE WEEK to divide, as Daniel tells us. Does what Paul tells us fit what Daniel and what Jesus tells us? Certainly it does! without a doubt there will be streaming video coming from the temple. Those living in Judea will SEE this abomination and will flee.

Anyone with an understanding of Revelation knows this fleeing will come in chapter 12, which is a midpoint chapter in Revelation.  When one understands the chronology of Revelation, that the entire 70th week is clearly marked there with 7's, we see how to interpret Daniel 9:27.  (Your theory fails again!) They will notice that John gave 5 different parallel paths of the final 3 1/2 years, given in days, in months and in years, proving chapters 11-13 are midpoint chapters and all these parallel paths go to the 7th vial that ends the week. Your theory fails here also.

Your theory simply does not fit a close analysis of all of the end time scriptures, failing in point after point. Again I suggest you take off your preconceived glasses, throw your theories into file 13, and start over using ALL the end times scriptures.  I would start in Revelation, which is our most complete description of the end times scenario. Then you could fill in missing pieces from Old Testament scriptures.  For example, your theory totally misses the fact that God has MARKED the entire 70th week in Revelation. Until you get Revelation correct, your end time theories will fail.

Edited February 23, 2017 by iamlamad

[iamlamad]

6 minutes ago, inchrist said:

I find this statement to be ironic and yet you refuse to view daniel 9:26&9;27 from Christs perspective.

It is very simple: the perspective changes half way through verse 26. "The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary... " This was not accomplished with Jesus. It was accomplished with the Roman army.

[iamlamad]

5 minutes ago, inchrist said:

And yet all youve described is the latter half of the 70th week

It does take some reading and comprehension ability to read chapters 8 through 10 and understand John's narrative and intent.

It does amaze me that you miss something very obvious: an event that will divide the week (midst) must have a whole week to divide!

It does amaze me, you keep on insisting Christ's ministry was 3 1/2 years, but you offer no proof. We all know there is no scripture in any of the gospels telling us Christ's ministry was 3 1/2 years. Of course, we all know that does not fit anyway, for Daniel switched subjects in verse 26b.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

7 hours ago, inchrist said:

The first half of Daniel 9:27a is fulfilled by Christ.....the latter half Daniel 9:27b is the future. The gap is betweeb 9:27a-----gap-----9:27b

inchrist has just defined himself as a Partial-Preterist.
He has nothing to back up what he says.

The gap in prophecy between the seven AND the sixty-two 'sevens' - and that conjunction linking the two periods is in the original language -
- the gap in prophecy between the seven AND the sixty-two 'sevens' and the one 'seven' is put in by Gabriel:

1. The Messiah is "cut off" - karat.  This term also refers to the bloodshed used to "cut" a deal/covenant.
2. The people who define the origin of the anti-Christ, destroy the city and the sanctuary - A.D. 70.
3. War continues until the "end" (of the seventy 'seven's ostensibly by context).

Now how has that played out?

1. Jesus was crucified after being accepted by the people at Passover
2. The First Jewish Revolt saw the Romans destroy Jerusalem and level the Temple.
3. War has continued even through the Pax Romana which includes BOTH Jewish Revolts.

inchrist just makes up stuff. 
Partial-Preterism, like full-blown Preterism, is the least credible eschatology.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

2 hours ago, inchrist said:

Oh but I do - Gal 3:17
Paul — who was an expert on the Old Testament — was referring directly to Daniel, telling us that Daniel’s 70 weeks did not stop once the 69th week came to an end. It continued right into the 70th week.

Whoa!  Talk about dishonesty in interpretation!
Paul IS NOT "referring directly to Daniel's seven and sixty-two 'seven's to Jesus -

Paul is referring to the 430 years between Abraham and Moses!

Gal 3:15-18
Intent of the Law
Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, And to seeds, as referring to many, but rather to one, And to your seed, that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. - NASB

And some expert commentary from the Expositor's Bible Commentary rather than a untruthfully biased, specious reference.  Here are some relevant parts:

v15
In Abraham's day an oath was sometimes confirmed by a ceremony in which animals were cut into two parts along the backbone and placed in two rows, the rows facing each other across a space marked off between them. The parties to the oath walked together into the space between the parts and spoke their promises there. This oath would be especially sacred because of the shed blood. It was this ceremony God enacted with Abraham (Gen 15). But it had this exception: In the case of God's covenant with Abraham, God alone passed between the pieces of the slain animals, thereby signifying that he alone stood behind the promises. The author of Hebrews captures this sense of the covenant by saying, "When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, saying, `I will surely bless you and give you many descendants.' And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised" (Heb 6:13-15).

v16
If the promises made to Abraham were made only to Abraham and his immediate descendants, they might well be considered fulfilled even before the giving of the law; the law would simply inaugurate a new era in God's dealings with mankind. But the promises were not fulfilled in the period before the giving of the law, Paul argues. They were embodied in the coming Redeemer through whom the fullness of blessing was to come. That Redeemer was Christ. Consequently, God's blessing of justification by grace through faith spans the ages; and the law, whatever else one might think of it, must be seen to have served only an interim function.

v17
The 430 years comes from Exodus 12:40, which in the Greek text is given as the period between Abraham and Moses rather than, as in versions based on the Hebrew text, as the period during which the people were slaves in Egypt. The difference is of no consequence from the viewpoint of Paul's argument, because his point depends only on the historical sequence. If God had been blessing Abraham and his posterity through the way of promise for 430 years and if he was to do the same for all men through Christ and his posterity, how could the giving of the law annul this promise? It could not, as even the human analogy of covenants and wills shows. Therefore, the law cannot add to, nor subtract from, God's first and only way of salvation.

inchrist has shown himself to not only be less than completely honest, he shows himself to be a very poor Biblical scholar.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

2 hours ago, inchrist said:

Oh but I still do (have something to back up what he says)
Matthew 26:28, “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Jesus said NEW Covenant.

Jesus did not say STRENGTHENED OLD Covenant.

inchrist has NOTHING to back up what he says.

[iamlamad]

inchrists wrote,

sted 4 hours ago (edited) · Report post

5 hours ago, iamlamad said:

It does take some reading and comprehension ability to read chapters 8 through 10 and understand John's narrative and intent.

Chapters 8 to 10 is the latter half of the week....it is also where youll find your two witnesses....no where is a 70th full week discussed.

All you are showing us is your lack of understanding of John's great book.  John does not get to the midpoint until chapter 11.

Always remember: ANY theory that must rearrange Revelation will be proven wrong.

[iamlamad]

inchrist wrote,

6 hours ago, iamlamad said:

.  For example, your theory totally misses the fact that God has MARKED the entire 70th week in Revelation. Until you get Revelation correct, your end time theories will fail.

And yet all youve described is the latter half of the 70th week

I know where the entire (complete) 70th week is - in the great book of Revelation. You can't even find the midpoint!

Allow me to assist you: God marked the 70th week with 7's. The 7th seal - the 7th trumpet - the 7th vial.  Until you learn this truth, you will never understand John's chronology.

[iamlamad]

inchrist wrote,

Quote

 It does amaze me that you miss something very obvious: an event that will divide the week (midst) must have a whole week to divide!

Now i know what the problem is between you and marcus, you two are blatantly not reading what Im saying.

Christ has a whole week which he divided for his bride...the crucifixion is what divided christs week....the latter half to be completed by christs 2 witnesses.

Where do we find the crucifixion in verse 27?

²⁷ And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:   Your first mistake is not going back to the proper noun for this pronoun: basic rules of English.  The "he" refers back to the "he" of those who destroyed the city.

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease   Your second mistake is not reading properly or reading with preconceived glasses: some translations say 'cease" and other say "stopped." In any case the meaning is, the next day THERE IS NO Daily sacrifice. That is what cease or stop means. It is the very same "he" that confirms the covenant. We all know (all except you it seems) that Jesus didn't stop the daily sacrifices. They kept on for many years.

On the other hand, if we take what Paul wrote, we can see that the man of sin is the "he" and he will stop the daily sacrifices. And they will not come again the next morning.

there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: ( Douay-Rheims ) This fits perfectly with what Paul wrote. the man of sin WILL BE the abomination.

We are reading what you are writing: we are just not believing it.