Seven Year Tribulation?

[not an echo]

13 hours ago, Diaste said:

On 2/15/2021 at 12:06 PM, not an echo said:

On my end, I believe it might serve our discussion if I could consider when you see the "period of 7 years" (that you acknowledge) as beginning...

I don't think any of us know when it begins. The OP asks if  tribulation is 7 years. 

Many think it's synonymous with the last week. Perhaps that's right. Jesus said 'great tribulation' which is not synonymous with the entire week since it only comes after the A of D, which is the midpoint.

I don't see a 7 year 'tribulation'. I see a time of 'great tribulation' beginning at the time of the A of D. I see other 'tribulations' in scripture but not every mention of tribulation is connected to the last week. 

First of all, I have long thought that the phrase "The Seven Year Tribulation Period" has made for some unfortunate difficulties and/or confusion relating to Daniel's 70th Week, which phrase I much prefer.  In line with your comment, some mentions of tribulation have nothing to do with Daniel's 70th Week, and failure of some to be mindful of this continues to be something that must be dealt with.

As far as my reply, I was curious concerning when you see the "period of 7 years" as beginning, because I am drawing a scriptural blank on any possibility that would not involve some pretty heavy duty stuff.

If I am reading you right, it seems that your question revolves around whether the first 3-1/2 years of Daniel's 70th Week will be a time of tribulation.  Is this indeed what you are questioning?  If so, are you possibly thinking that it may be a time when "all is calm, all is bright"?

[Charlie744]

51 minutes ago, not an echo said:

First of all, I have long thought that the phrase "The Seven Year Tribulation Period" has made for some unfortunate difficulties and/or confusion relating to Daniel's 70th Week, which phrase I much prefer.  In line with your comment, some mentions of tribulation have nothing to do with Daniel's 70th Week, and failure of some to be mindful of this continues to be something that must be dealt with.

As far as my reply, I was curious concerning when you see the "period of 7 years" as beginning, because I am drawing a scriptural blank on any possibility that would not involve some pretty heavy duty stuff.

If I am reading you right, it seems that your question revolves around whether the first 3-1/2 years of Daniel's 70th Week will be a time of tribulation.  Is this indeed what you are questioning?  If so, are you possibly thinking that it may be a time when "all is calm, all is bright"?

To both echo and RM:

From my point of view this topic is abundantly clear! Yet out of 100 people interested in Daniel and Revelation (which I have not touched), perhaps 97 of them might agree with your interpretations on the 70th week. 

I believe Daniel have us 3 separate breakdowns for the 70 weeks (490 years). This was indeed purposeful because within each of this specific times there would be those events that would take place AND be fulfilled WITHIN their respective time periods ONLY. 

This allows us to move through this long period and see their fulfillment as milestones and identify what is yet to come and when. 

The two longest time periods amount to 483 years where the land, the city and the Temple were restored. That is the first 69 weeks of this prophecy. Daniel would them identify 6 fulfillment’s in chapter 9 that must also take place ..... and this is where our focus should be! Those 6 requirements can only be fulfilled in the one remaining week of the 7o weeks. 

Every one of the 6 will be a fulfillment of the coming Messiah who arrives on the first day of the 70th week. No gaps between these weeks- it is all one prophetic period where God is carving up to have us see those separate events that are necessary to restore HIS people once again. And where the most important component is revealed in this last week! The first two periods addressed the physical needs of the Jews - their land, Jerusalem and of course the Temple. But remember, the first Temple was destroyed AND where Jeremiah hid the ARK (never to be found or placed back into the Temple). 

So the entire 70 weeks is this restoration process WITH THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENT yet to be restored- the missing ARK HAD to be restored but it could ONLY be accomplished by the coming Messiah- HIS presence would complete and fulfill the restoration! That is what Daniel 9 is all about... Daniel was needed to act as a High Priest for God to accept the prayers of forgiveness of the Jews for their transgressions. This started the forgiveness requirements found in Leviticus. Then each of the physical restoration parts would be completed culminating in the restoration of the Holy One (ARK) THE Messiah in the restored Temple. 

Now we have the beginning of the 70th week of Daniel and where the Messiah MUST fulfill HIS part of the restoration process- those 6 requirements in chapter 9. 

And HE certainly did fulfill ALL 6 of them even though HE was “cut off” in the “midst of the week” by the crucifixion. 

The 70 week prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled in time and purpose - no gap theory, and ALL the gross and purposeful misinterpretations promulgated by the RCC in the 1500’s as a necessity to remove them from being identified as the “little horn” of Daniel 7 & 8. 

Unfortunately, they have been quite successful and after some 500 years their campaign has almost succeeded in making “their interpretations (to counter the Reformation) as gospel- as I mentioned above- maybe some 97 % or so accept this!

Look forward to hearing from all - your thoughts and opinions, Charlie 

 

 

 

 

[not an echo]

3 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

5 hours ago, not an echo said:

First of all, I have long thought that the phrase "The Seven Year Tribulation Period" has made for some unfortunate difficulties and/or confusion relating to Daniel's 70th Week, which phrase I much prefer.  In line with your comment, some mentions of tribulation have nothing to do with Daniel's 70th Week, and failure of some to be mindful of this continues to be something that must be dealt with.

As far as my reply, I was curious concerning when you see the "period of 7 years" as beginning, because I am drawing a scriptural blank on any possibility that would not involve some pretty heavy duty stuff.

If I am reading you right, it seems that your question revolves around whether the first 3-1/2 years of Daniel's 70th Week will be a time of tribulation.  Is this indeed what you are questioning?  If so, are you possibly thinking that it may be a time when "all is calm, all is bright"?

Expand  

To both echo and RM:

From my point of view this topic is abundantly clear! Yet out of 100 people interested in Daniel and Revelation (which I have not touched), perhaps 97 of them might agree with your interpretations on the 70th week. 

I believe Daniel have us 3 separate breakdowns for the 70 weeks (490 years). This was indeed purposeful because within each of this specific times there would be those events that would take place AND be fulfilled WITHIN their respective time periods ONLY. 

This allows us to move through this long period and see their fulfillment as milestones and identify what is yet to come and when. 

The two longest time periods amount to 483 years where the land, the city and the Temple were restored. That is the first 69 weeks of this prophecy. Daniel would them identify 6 fulfillment’s in chapter 9 that must also take place ..... and this is where our focus should be! Those 6 requirements can only be fulfilled in the one remaining week of the 7o weeks. 

Every one of the 6 will be a fulfillment of the coming Messiah who arrives on the first day of the 70th week. No gaps between these weeks- it is all one prophetic period where God is carving up to have us see those separate events that are necessary to restore HIS people once again. And where the most important component is revealed in this last week! The first two periods addressed the physical needs of the Jews - their land, Jerusalem and of course the Temple. But remember, the first Temple was destroyed AND where Jeremiah hid the ARK (never to be found or placed back into the Temple). 

So the entire 70 weeks is this restoration process WITH THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENT yet to be restored- the missing ARK HAD to be restored but it could ONLY be accomplished by the coming Messiah- HIS presence would complete and fulfill the restoration! That is what Daniel 9 is all about... Daniel was needed to act as a High Priest for God to accept the prayers of forgiveness of the Jews for their transgressions. This started the forgiveness requirements found in Leviticus. Then each of the physical restoration parts would be completed culminating in the restoration of the Holy One (ARK) THE Messiah in the restored Temple. 

Now we have the beginning of the 70th week of Daniel and where the Messiah MUST fulfill HIS part of the restoration process- those 6 requirements in chapter 9. 

And HE certainly did fulfill ALL 6 of them even though HE was “cut off” in the “midst of the week” by the crucifixion. 

The 70 week prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled in time and purpose - no gap theory, and ALL the gross and purposeful misinterpretations promulgated by the RCC in the 1500’s as a necessity to remove them from being identified as the “little horn” of Daniel 7 & 8. 

Unfortunately, they have been quite successful and after some 500 years their campaign has almost succeeded in making “their interpretations (to counter the Reformation) as gospel- as I mentioned above- maybe some 97 % or so accept this!

Look forward to hearing from all - your thoughts and opinions, Charlie 

On 2/15/2021 at 12:24 PM, Charlie744 said:

But you have isolated the Abomination of Desolation as a barrier, if you will, is still causing you a major concern....... and where you site Matthew 24 as a significant obstacle (and this is certainly understandable since this is a very important verse to contend with when discussing Daniel 9 and just who and when it is speaking to and about).

So let's take that verse in Matthew and perhaps unpack it in a manner that speaks / is interpreted quite differently than today's accepted view (again, along with all the other misinterpretations of Daniel):

 Matthew 24:15-16: “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

a) the very first thing I see that conflicts with today's interpretation is "when you see standing in the holy place".

              Jesus is saying this of course while He is with His Disciples. Meaning this MUST take place BEFORE the 70 AD destruction by Titus. For me, this can only mean one of two time periods: either Jesus is referring to 70 AD where Titus completely destroys everything OR (here is where I place my money) at the time of Christ (and all of this verse must tie together or it will fail). I believe it refers to the time of Christ because AFTER the crucifixion, there IS NO HOLY PLACE -THE TEMPLE MAY STAND PHYSICALLY BUT THERE IS NO LONGER ANYTHING HOLY ABOUT IT AND I DON'T SEE JESUS REFERRING TO IT ANY LONGER AFTER HE BECOMES "THIS TEMPLE THAT WILL BE REBUILT IN 3 DAYS". 

             But this interpretation is incomplete unless all other "pieces" fit together. So, WHO is "standing in the holy place the ABOMINATION THAT  CAUSES DESOLATION"? If the holy place is the Temple at the time of the Messiah, then the Messiah is the one who will stand in the Temple..... He will be judged by the Pharisees and thrown out to be crucified OUTSIDE of the Temple at Calvary. His death IS THE ABOMINATION - THE MOST CRUEL, TERRIBLE, UNFATHOMABLE ACT THAT WOULD EVER HAPPEN ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.... THERE CAN BE NO GREATER ABOMINATION THAN TO CRUCIFY OUR GOD AND LORD!!! 

Hello Charlie744,

In your 2/15/2021 post above, you draw this conclusion to what you have been saying: "But this interpretation is incomplete unless all other "pieces" fit together. So, WHO is "standing in the holy place the ABOMINATION THAT  CAUSES DESOLATION"? If the holy place is the Temple at the time of the Messiah, then the Messiah is the one who will stand in the Temple....."  I guess my first thought in response to what you have put forth is this question:  What do you do with Mark's account of Jesus' words?  Note from Mark 13:

 14  But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, STANDING WHERE IT OUGHT NOT, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Seems to me that your position is in serious conflict with what Mark records.  If anyone "ought" to be standing in the temple, it would be the true Messiah.  Am I missing something about what you are saying?

[Charlie744]

1 hour ago, not an echo said:

Hello Charlie744,

In your 2/15/2021 post above, you draw this conclusion to what you have been saying: "But this interpretation is incomplete unless all other "pieces" fit together. So, WHO is "standing in the holy place the ABOMINATION THAT  CAUSES DESOLATION"? If the holy place is the Temple at the time of the Messiah, then the Messiah is the one who will stand in the Temple....."  I guess my first thought in response to what you have put forth is this question:  What do you do with Mark's account of Jesus' words?  Note from Mark 13:

 14  But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, STANDING WHERE IT OUGHT NOT, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Seems to me that your position is in serious conflict with what Mark records.  If anyone "ought" to be standing in the temple, it would be the true Messiah.  Am I missing something about what you are saying?

 

Thanks for your response. Let me say what first comes to mind after reading your question:

• I think you MIGHT agree with me when I say that subsequent to the crucifixion, the Temple had absolutely no value, righteousness or purpose for or within God's Plan of Salvation. It and all the ceremonial laws have indeed had fulfilled their purpose.... no more lamb sacrifices since the Messiah IS THE PERFECT SACRIFICE, the Temple was now just a physical building of no more important to God.

 

• If that is so, and for me it certainly is, then there is NO MORE HOLY PLACE / TEMPLE where an "abomination" could possibly take place. When Jesus described the abomination of desolation, there was the presupposition of an operating temple in Jerusalem. You can’t have the abomination of desolation without a temple, and it can NOT be just the physical Temple.

Now, I assure you some folks may try and argue that a 3rd Temple or even the remaining physical 2nd Temple still could be "interpreted" within this verse but for me, it does not matter what man or those who are committed to construct a 3rd Temple believe...

The abomination of desolation is “the object of religious nausea and loathing who has to do with desolation.”  “The Semitic expression used in Daniel describes an abomination so detestable it causes the Temple to be abandoned by the people of God and provokes desolation. . . Jesus’ use of this distinctive expression. This definition can not be attached to any Temple other than the restored Temple at the time of the Messiah.

Now, without taking a step back, I certainly will acknowledge I have NO understanding of Greek or the translations to English, but I have noticed months earlier there may be at least one possible response to the Greek word "abomination", (but I am not using this as support for my opinion of just want this abomination that causes desolation truly refers to). It goes as follows:

 

Looking at Greek, the masculine tense of the word "standing" adjusts the neutral "abomination;" in other words, this abomination is a man. 

 

So, for me, we have the requirement for the "restored Temple" along with the restoration of the Jews, the city and the land which was taken away when the Jews were punished and taken to Babylon. Not only did the Jews HAVE TO ask God for forgiveness but everything had to be restored once again in Jerusalem and be ready for the coming Messiah (and this is what is meant in 11:5, when Daniel gives us his phrase showing us everything is ready and once again complete in preparation for the Messiah - "The king of the south shall grow strong".....99% believe this must be referring to the southern king Ptolemy who would be the strongest general post Alexander....... but this is not a secular reference. It fits perfectly with the pattern of events that had occurred to the Jews: they continued to disobey God, sinned and committed idolatry and were taken captive to Babylon. No Jews, no city, no land and no Temple, AND no asking for forgiveness by the Jews until Daniel 9 when he spoke to God on behalf of the Jews. Now they could return and they did in 3 separate stages or carve out periods with the 3rd period (last week of Daniel) to serve as the restoration of the ARK - the HOLY of HOLIES to be fulfilled by the coming Messiah. So, everything was ready at the end of the 69th week.... and of course, we then see Jesus baptized by John to begin HIS ministry and fulfill HIS 6 requirements presented in Daniel 9. So 11:5 is meant to tell us that "all is ready for the restoration and the coming Messiah" - the KOS is strong once again and ready to receive their Messiah ----- and for me once again, this is a wonderful picture coming together. All the pieces of this puzzle fit  perfectly - from their captivity to the coming Messiah, all these verses / pieces of this puzzle are in harmony and paint a consistent story leading up to the most important event EVER. 

Now if you look at just about all of today's accepted interpretations you might find this "abomination that causes desolation" IS a secular reference - whether it be AE who placed a pig on the Alter or Titus surrounding Jerusalem, etc.

 According to John Gill, one who is often quoted and reflects today's interpretations:

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,.... The Roman army encompassing Jerusalem, which was an abomination to the Jews, and an "impure sign" of their destruction, as the Syriac and Persic versions render it; and a desolating one to their nation, city, and temple:

spoken of by Daniel the prophet, in Daniel 9:27. This clause is omitted in the Vulgate Latin, and was not found by Beza, in two of his copies, and is thought to be transcribed from Matthew:

standing where it ought not; round about the city, in the midst of it, and even in the temple: in one of Beza's exemplars it is added, "in the holy place", as in Matthew; 

So today's interpretation of the "abomination" might be the Roman army, who is "standing where it ought not" ----- surrounding the city? THIS IS WHAT MOST FOLKS ARE ACCEPTING TO BE THE MESSAGE IN MARK AND MATTHEW AND REFERRING TO DANIEL AND THE COMING MESSIAH? 

NO, I believe the worse act that could ever take place is the rejection and crucifixion of their Messiah and this certainly caused those same things which HAD TO BE RESTORED AFTER THE JEWS WERE TAKEN TO BABYLON TO BE COMPLETELY DESOLATED / DESTROYED..... IT HAS ALL COMPLETED THE CIRCLE AND THERE IS NO PLACE OR PURPOSE TO INTERPRET CHAPTER 11 OR MARK 14 IN A SECULAR MANNER.

Now I am not sure about the term "standing where it ought not"  - does it mean that from the perspective of the Jews at the time that Jesus had absolutely NO right to claim He was the Messiah and they treated HIM as making the most egregious and most blasphemous claim possible and therefore worthy of being stoned to death under Jewish law, OR, this phrase means that Jesus the Messiah should have been recognized as their Messiah and should never have been treated in such a way.....and should not have been crucified!  I will have to give this some real thought and study.... but this does NOT change the message, the complete story from Babylon to the Cross to the destruction of the Jews, the city, the land and the Temple - it is ONE story with all pieces coming together. Throw in some unimportant actors and conflicts such as AE or the Ptolemy's and the integrity of HIS prophetic message / story is corrupted...... 

If you interpret Daniel 9 and 11 in a secular manner, then you have to stay with Mark and Matthew and some other NT verses as secular and undoubtedly being flung into the far future some 2,000 years after Christ.  I ask that you stand back and look at Daniel bringing us one complete and fulfilled prophetic story about the Jews, their falling away, their restoration, the coming Messiah, His rejection, the consequences of this rejection which is the destruction and desolation of all the events God put into place from Babylon .....on....

There is no place for AE, Ptolemy, Berenice, etc., God is interested in HIS people, HIS city, HIS land, HIS Temple and the coming Messiah.....look for HIM in Daniel 9 and 11 and you will also see HIM in Mark and Matthew.....

Charlie

 

 

 

 

[Uriah]

On 2/15/2021 at 3:41 AM, Diaste said:

Hey Uriah,

Yes. I have to agree as I see the same thing.

Certainly there isn't a 7 year 'tribulation'. A time period of 7 years? Sure. All of it 'tribulation'? 

I understand this scenario as used often by the pre wrath folks as it relates to the rapture if I'm not mistaken. Again, it all comes back to what we do with Dan. 9:27.

My take is that Jesus strengthened/confirmed the covenant to salvation by faith without the works of the law and made the way available for the Gentiles as well. 

The time periods in Rev. are overlapping over most of the same events. 

[not an echo]

8 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

12 hours ago, not an echo said:

Hello Charlie744,

In your 2/15/2021 post above, you draw this conclusion to what you have been saying: "But this interpretation is incomplete unless all other "pieces" fit together. So, WHO is "standing in the holy place the ABOMINATION THAT  CAUSES DESOLATION"? If the holy place is the Temple at the time of the Messiah, then the Messiah is the one who will stand in the Temple....."  I guess my first thought in response to what you have put forth is this question:  What do you do with Mark's account of Jesus' words?  Note from Mark 13:

 14  But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, STANDING WHERE IT OUGHT NOT, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Seems to me that your position is in serious conflict with what Mark records.  If anyone "ought" to be standing in the temple, it would be the true Messiah.  Am I missing something about what you are saying?

Expand  

 

Thanks for your response. Let me say what first comes to mind after reading your question:

• I think you MIGHT agree with me when I say that subsequent to the crucifixion, the Temple had absolutely no value, righteousness or purpose for or within God's Plan of Salvation. It and all the ceremonial laws have indeed had fulfilled their purpose.... no more lamb sacrifices since the Messiah IS THE PERFECT SACRIFICE, the Temple was now just a physical building of no more important to God.

 

• If that is so, and for me it certainly is, then there is NO MORE HOLY PLACE / TEMPLE where an "abomination" could possibly take place. When Jesus described the abomination of desolation, there was the presupposition of an operating temple in Jerusalem. You can’t have the abomination of desolation without a temple, and it can NOT be just the physical Temple.

Now, I assure you some folks may try and argue that a 3rd Temple or even the remaining physical 2nd Temple still could be "interpreted" within this verse but for me, it does not matter what man or those who are committed to construct a 3rd Temple believe...

The abomination of desolation is “the object of religious nausea and loathing who has to do with desolation.”  “The Semitic expression used in Daniel describes an abomination so detestable it causes the Temple to be abandoned by the people of God and provokes desolation. . . Jesus’ use of this distinctive expression. This definition can not be attached to any Temple other than the restored Temple at the time of the Messiah.

Now, without taking a step back, I certainly will acknowledge I have NO understanding of Greek or the translations to English, but I have noticed months earlier there may be at least one possible response to the Greek word "abomination", (but I am not using this as support for my opinion of just want this abomination that causes desolation truly refers to). It goes as follows:

 

Looking at Greek, the masculine tense of the word "standing" adjusts the neutral "abomination;" in other words, this abomination is a man. 

 

So, for me, we have the requirement for the "restored Temple" along with the restoration of the Jews, the city and the land which was taken away when the Jews were punished and taken to Babylon. Not only did the Jews HAVE TO ask God for forgiveness but everything had to be restored once again in Jerusalem and be ready for the coming Messiah (and this is what is meant in 11:5, when Daniel gives us his phrase showing us everything is ready and once again complete in preparation for the Messiah - "The king of the south shall grow strong".....99% believe this must be referring to the southern king Ptolemy who would be the strongest general post Alexander....... but this is not a secular reference. It fits perfectly with the pattern of events that had occurred to the Jews: they continued to disobey God, sinned and committed idolatry and were taken captive to Babylon. No Jews, no city, no land and no Temple, AND no asking for forgiveness by the Jews until Daniel 9 when he spoke to God on behalf of the Jews. Now they could return and they did in 3 separate stages or carve out periods with the 3rd period (last week of Daniel) to serve as the restoration of the ARK - the HOLY of HOLIES to be fulfilled by the coming Messiah. So, everything was ready at the end of the 69th week.... and of course, we then see Jesus baptized by John to begin HIS ministry and fulfill HIS 6 requirements presented in Daniel 9. So 11:5 is meant to tell us that "all is ready for the restoration and the coming Messiah" - the KOS is strong once again and ready to receive their Messiah ----- and for me once again, this is a wonderful picture coming together. All the pieces of this puzzle fit  perfectly - from their captivity to the coming Messiah, all these verses / pieces of this puzzle are in harmony and paint a consistent story leading up to the most important event EVER. 

Now if you look at just about all of today's accepted interpretations you might find this "abomination that causes desolation" IS a secular reference - whether it be AE who placed a pig on the Alter or Titus surrounding Jerusalem, etc.

 According to John Gill, one who is often quoted and reflects today's interpretations:

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,.... The Roman army encompassing Jerusalem, which was an abomination to the Jews, and an "impure sign" of their destruction, as the Syriac and Persic versions render it; and a desolating one to their nation, city, and temple:

spoken of by Daniel the prophet, in Daniel 9:27. This clause is omitted in the Vulgate Latin, and was not found by Beza, in two of his copies, and is thought to be transcribed from Matthew:

standing where it ought not; round about the city, in the midst of it, and even in the temple: in one of Beza's exemplars it is added, "in the holy place", as in Matthew; 

So today's interpretation of the "abomination" might be the Roman army, who is "standing where it ought not" ----- surrounding the city? THIS IS WHAT MOST FOLKS ARE ACCEPTING TO BE THE MESSAGE IN MARK AND MATTHEW AND REFERRING TO DANIEL AND THE COMING MESSIAH? 

NO, I believe the worse act that could ever take place is the rejection and crucifixion of their Messiah and this certainly caused those same things which HAD TO BE RESTORED AFTER THE JEWS WERE TAKEN TO BABYLON TO BE COMPLETELY DESOLATED / DESTROYED..... IT HAS ALL COMPLETED THE CIRCLE AND THERE IS NO PLACE OR PURPOSE TO INTERPRET CHAPTER 11 OR MARK 14 IN A SECULAR MANNER.

Now I am not sure about the term "standing where it ought not"  - does it mean that from the perspective of the Jews at the time that Jesus had absolutely NO right to claim He was the Messiah and they treated HIM as making the most egregious and most blasphemous claim possible and therefore worthy of being stoned to death under Jewish law, OR, this phrase means that Jesus the Messiah should have been recognized as their Messiah and should never have been treated in such a way.....and should not have been crucified!  I will have to give this some real thought and study.... but this does NOT change the message, the complete story from Babylon to the Cross to the destruction of the Jews, the city, the land and the Temple - it is ONE story with all pieces coming together. Throw in some unimportant actors and conflicts such as AE or the Ptolemy's and the integrity of HIS prophetic message / story is corrupted...... 

If you interpret Daniel 9 and 11 in a secular manner, then you have to stay with Mark and Matthew and some other NT verses as secular and undoubtedly being flung into the far future some 2,000 years after Christ.  I ask that you stand back and look at Daniel bringing us one complete and fulfilled prophetic story about the Jews, their falling away, their restoration, the coming Messiah, His rejection, the consequences of this rejection which is the destruction and desolation of all the events God put into place from Babylon .....on....

There is no place for AE, Ptolemy, Berenice, etc., God is interested in HIS people, HIS city, HIS land, HIS Temple and the coming Messiah.....look for HIM in Daniel 9 and 11 and you will also see HIM in Mark and Matthew.....

Charlie

I hope my following thoughts will remain "on track" with Diaste's thread and OP and possibly serve to give you something more to think on as well...

Very interesting to me is what John saw and recorded in 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.

 3  And I will give power unto My two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

For Diaste, this is the first mention in The Revelation (or anywhere in the NT up to this point) of any 3-1/2 year period, and there are two such periods mentioned in tandem.  How these are interpreted is another matter, but I believe that all will agree that these mentions should give us some pause.

For Charlie744, note the first verse above.  As I have thought on it, just because the Temple of God is here mentioned and worship is taking place, this does not mean that it is God who is being worshipped.  My mind goes to what Paul wrote in II Thessalonians 2 concerning "the man of sin"...

 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.

Couple all of this with the "little book open" that John writes of in Revelation 10 (be reminded, just preceding what he sees in chp. 11) and my interest really spikes, as I see this as being the little book of Daniel (Dan. 12:4, 8-10).  Couple this with Jesus' words in Matthew 24, and my interest really, really, spikes...

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:)

Well, so much more can be said, but at least I've been able to sow some more seeds of God's Word.  Got to go, there's other things I've got to tend to...

[Charlie744]

3 hours ago, not an echo said:

I hope my following thoughts will remain "on track" with Diaste's thread and OP and possibly serve to give you something more to think on as well...

Very interesting to me is what John saw and recorded in 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.

 3  And I will give power unto My two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

For Diaste, this is the first mention in The Revelation (or anywhere in the NT up to this point) of any 3-1/2 year period, and there are two such periods mentioned in tandem.  How these are interpreted is another matter, but I believe that all will agree that these mentions should give us some pause.

For Charlie744, note the first verse above.  As I have thought on it, just because the Temple of God is here mentioned and worship is taking place, this does not mean that it is God who is being worshipped.  My mind goes to what Paul wrote in II Thessalonians 2 concerning "the man of sin"...

 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.

Couple all of this with the "little book open" that John writes of in Revelation 10 (be reminded, just preceding what he sees in chp. 11) and my interest really spikes, as I see this as being the little book of Daniel (Dan. 12:4, 8-10).  Couple this with Jesus' words in Matthew 24, and my interest really, really, spikes...

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:)

Well, so much more can be said, but at least I've been able to sow some more seeds of God's Word.  Got to go, there's other things I've got to tend to...

not an echo, thank you very much for your thoughts... you certainly come across as a patient, knowledgeable student of the Scriptures, and unlike myself, have been at this for some time.

First, I am NOT able to address any verses and their interpretations within Revelation as I have not studied this book at this time. Daniel is the first book that I have attempted to read, study and interpret. This was due to many folks recommending that I study Daniel before I attempted Revelation.

Despite many comments and opinions (within this forum) to the contrary, Daniel MUST BE INTERPRETED ON ITS OWN. This means that ANY book in the OT is available and in many cases needed to understand Daniel, but absolutely NO NT Scripture is required or allowed. There is more than enough information within the OT and Daniel to properly interpret it.

So, I apologize for not being able to address your Revelation to Daniel interpretations but unless and until we truly understand and interpret Daniel correctly there is no reason to compare them to anything. 

Here is one reason to support this:  

After studying Daniel (still in process to complete 11), most of today's interpretations have not only misinterpreted some of the most critical verses within Daniel but they have also flung them far into the future and have determined they STILL HAVE NOT OCCURRED.... And this is a good example of a Daniel misinterpretation being "matched" to a Revelation misinterpretation..... and then some / many scholarly views label this as proof of their success - here is my interpretation of Daniel XXXX and see, it fits perfectly with my interpretation of Revelation XXXX - it must be right.... Therefore, it becomes circular and where we find both interpretations are incorrect..... so we can not look to Revelation for  confirmation UNLESS DANIEL IS INTERPRETED CORRECTLY.  

If we find within today's accepted interpretations of Daniel there are timing application issues, gross misinterpretations regarding identification of critical actors within his verses, lack of integrity in continuing the "storyline" within Daniel, an almost complete failure to see the Messiah within these prophetic verses, on and on........ they we can not and should not carry them forward to Revelation or any other book (Matthew and Mark when they reference Daniel).

So, I will apologize for not being able to address your Revelation references. Once I complete Daniel I will move on to Revelation which I expect will be at least 1000 X's more difficult than Daniel 11.... 

Daniel was written for the JEWS FIRST....... the Book of Daniel is one complete and unbelievable story which if followed properly (and we have actual history to confirm this) it tells us the story as follows (this is the road map to stay on course in interpreting Daniel):

1) Jews once again sin against God, are disobedient and commit idolatry. God has given them a billion chances but now He must punish them. This will be a punishment unlike any other to this time; Many Jews will be killed, almost all will be taken captive to Babylon, the city and Temple will be destroyed. It is ALMOST a complete annihilation of HIs people....

2) They complete their punishment from God for 70 years as prophesied in Jeremiah. (prior to the captivity, Jeremiah hides the ARK and it will never be seen again),

3) God's Plan of restoration:

           Daniel, although not a High Priest is allowed to pray for forgiveness for the Jews transgression as required by Leviticus (without this prayer, they could and would not be allowed to leave Babylon. This might seem rather unimportant within Daniel but it is meaningful when other chapters are interpreted and we find this is a major reason why Daniel MUST BE KEPT ALIVE BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO RETURN). 

           The Jews are allowed to return and the "Restoration Process" begins. This "process" contains ALL the components necessary to restore them to their pre-Babylonian state: 

                   1) the city and the building must be restored,

                   2) the land must be restored to them,

                   3) the Temple must be re-built,

                   4) the ARK of the covenant or the HOLINESS within the Temple must be restored, but Jeremiah had hidden the ARK and it will not be found,

 

And all of this must have started after the prayer of forgiveness to God in chapter 9.

. So Daniel reveals God's Plan of Restoration where ALL the above will be completed within the 70 weeks or 490 years.... period!

Daniel is very specific in that the top 3 above will be completed / fulfilled within the 69 week period or 483 years. All the physical restoration is done and ready for the final and most important part of the restoration - the restoration of the ARK and the HOLY Sanctuary. 

But this is not possible since Jeremiah hid the ARK and without HIS PRESENCE it is simply a beautiful building. But God will address this as prophesied in Daniel where the "Anointed One" will come forth exactly on the first day of the 70 week when He is baptized by John. We now come to the remaining verses in chapter 9 where we find the 6 requirements the coming Messiah must fulfill - these are the individual missions HE must and will fulfill during the final week of the prophecy.....He will restore God's Presence within the Temple.... He is the ARK of the Covenant.

So, from destruction of the Jews and their captivity to Babylon to their restoration in Jerusalem once again we come full circle - all is back to normal in the HOLY City.

But of course, the Jews rejected their Messiah, the most important part of the restoration process. He claimed He was the Messiah and was ONE with God and they went absolutely crazy with anger and hate and they could not have found anyone or anything that was more blasphemous than to declare one is God. This was an "abomination" to them and they dealt with HIM as such. 

This most horrendous act that could not nor will not ever be duplicated is the "cause of their desolation". Once again, the Jews failed and this is right after their restoration. Once again, God would punish them and we find in 70 AD, God would use Titus to completely destroy all that He had allowed to be restored- full circle.  If we believe this is the story in Daniel, and for me it is crystal clear, then we MUST interpret the verses in the latter chapters of Daniel accordingly - meaning they speak of this restoration process, the coming Messiah, their rejection and once again their punishment, etc.  

If we stay with this storyline, I an assure you there is absolutely NO place or space within Daniel's prophetic verses for unimportant characters like AE, or the Ptolemy's or Berenice or their conflicts. They don't have a part in HIS restoration process for the Jews nor HIS Plan of Salvation after the crucifixion.

In a another post entitled, "Daniel 11 - the first 6 verses... Can we identify them? found under the Prophecy section, I have solicited everyone's thoughts and opinions on the identity of the actors within those verses. Perhaps you might take a look since this is certainly tied in with.... 

Thanks, Charlie

 

[abcdef]

On 2/14/2021 at 9:15 AM, Diaste said:

Is it really 7 years?

I don't see it.

Try thinking about this,

Matt 24:22, "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved, ..."

If the 1260 days and the 42 months are literal,

Then it is impossible for the days or months of the trib to be shortened.

But if the days and months are images of a undetermined period of prophetic time,

Then the "time" can be shortened, without effecting the description of the prophecy time line.

---

(If WW 2, had continued, there would be no people of Israel left.)

 

[Diaste]

5 hours ago, abcdef said:

Try thinking about this,

Matt 24:22, "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved, ..."

If the 1260 days and the 42 months are literal,

Then it is impossible for the days or months of the trib to be shortened.

But if the days and months are images of a undetermined period of prophetic time,

Then the "time" can be shortened, without effecting the description of the prophecy time line.

---

(If WW 2, had continued, there would be no people of Israel left.)

 

Or if the time period in question isn't the 'Tribulation', and the 'tribulation' properly defined has no set duration, and what we are calling 'tribulation' really isn't, then we have no disruption of time lines or durations.

While I'm convinced 'time. times and half a time' is either a season or precisely equivalent given the context, I'm equally convinced 1260 days and 42 months are literal days months in every case.

[Diaste]

14 hours ago, Uriah said:

I understand this scenario as used often by the pre wrath folks as it relates to the rapture if I'm not mistaken. Again, it all comes back to what we do with Dan. 9:27.

My take is that Jesus strengthened/confirmed the covenant to salvation by faith without the works of the law and made the way available for the Gentiles as well. 

The time periods in Rev. are overlapping over most of the same events. 

I guess I'm more leaning on Matt 24 for this idea. I see 'great tribulation' as described by Jesus happening after the A of D. That's indisputable since Jesus says that quite plainly. 

I don't see this 'Tribulation Period' anywhere. 

I could start a Daniel 9:27 discussion. Been there before. :)

Yes, there is overlap of time periods in Rev, overlap and some mentions are the same time period.