Daniel 9:24-27: When?

[douggg]

7 hours ago, Uriah said:

In addition, most believe the description by Paul of the man of sin showing himself that he is God (Thes) is going the modern-day AOD. The description is worded, "as God sits in the Temple of God." Where should we think God would be sitting in His Temple? In the inner place behind the veil? Outside of it?

The 2Thessalonians2:4 act will be the transgression of desolation act referred to in Daniel 8:12-13, as the time of end event, Daniel 8:27, by the person called the little horn.

It is also in Ezekiel 28:1-10, as what gets the person killed for that audacious act.

The abomination of desolation is something else.   It will be the statue image of the person after he becomes the beast in Revelation 13.   That statue image will be "set up" (as it says in Daniel 12:11) on the temple mount, the holy place, as Jesus said in Matthew 24:15.

It will be the signal for them in Judaea to flee to the mountains without delay.

[Diaste]

21 hours ago, WilliamL said:

The "leader, the one coming in" was Vespasian, who set the overall Roman policy, which brought about the destruction of temple and city.

I could look this up but I don't believe this is accurate.

21 hours ago, WilliamL said:

To say that someone from the devastated county of Syria will do the conquest of 11:40's King of the North is simply ludicrous.

Two things:

More accurately, the scripture refers to this man as The Assyrian. Around AD 70 Assyria didn't exist. Syria, and a whole lot of land in the Levant and Mesopotamia was under Assyrian rule in the past. Of course the Romans didn't conscript from Assyria, as it didn't exist, and could only conscript from the current countries. That Syria was a part of the old Assyrian empire is enough.  This person could come from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, even Israel, since that was all under Assyrian control.

The beast is empowered by vast supernatural force. It won't matter what his station is, he will be empowered by Satan.

[Diaste]

21 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Since we have already agreed that "an A of D is yet to come," why act like we haven't?

The issue is whether or not the details of Dan. 9:27 prophesies about it. So please don't waste my time going around in circles.

I was just making the point Jesus words are not about the When, but more about the nature. The other point is the AD 70 Temple destruction isn't the A of D prophesied by Jesus, it's not even an A of D of any sort. 

You don't seem to agree that one is yet to come. I could be wrong but you appear to liken Matt 24:15-21 or so to AD 70.

Daniel 9:27 clearly prophesies about an A of D. That Dan 9:27 A of D, prophecy and/or fulfillment, holds info we need to understand the future A of D. I suspect the future A of D will be a nearly exact copy of Dan 9:27 and AE IV in 169-167 BC. 

[Diaste]

22 hours ago, WilliamL said:

The issue is whether or not the details of Dan. 9:27 prophesies about it. 

I think it does.

While I'm thinking Jesus prophecy in Matt 24:15 is more about the info provided, so we can understand it when we see it, I also think the Dan 9:27 prophecy shares more similarities with Matt 24:15 than Dan 11:31.

For example:

"Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed."

This clearly speaks of AD 70, imo. The 1st sentence of Dan 9:27 does not.

"27And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week,i but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering."

AE IV did not do this. Neither Titus nor Vespasian did this. None confirmed a covenant for any period of time that led to stopping sacrifice and offering in the middle of that time period. For certain I have not seen it in the histories I have read about AE IV and 70 AD. Associating Dan 9:27 with Titus, Vespasian and 70 AD is a nonstarter for me.

"Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed. 27And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week,i but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation,j until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him.k”"

There is clearly a break in the narrative here, imo. The Temple gets destroyed along with the city in Dan 9:26. How is it the sacrifice and offering are stopped in the middle of the week when the Temple is already laid to ruin? 

This is the prophecy of AE IV in Dan 11:

"Then he will turn back and rage against the holy covenant and do damage. So he will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant. 31His forces will rise up and desecrate the temple fortress. They will abolish the daily sacrifice and set up the abomination of desolation."

Nothing about an agreement here. Not saying any agreement within the above didn't exist, but it's not mentioned. It's not up to me to say if one did or didn't occur within this prophecy. I can only go with, "It's not mentioned, therefore, there is no agreement here." That means it's not the same as Dan 9:27.

" And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation,j until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him.”"

Back to Daniel 9:27. As I see the above sentence, it must be associated with the agreement for one week, and the ending of the sacrifice and offering. So this A of D again is associated with a 7 year agreement and an end of temple ritual. If such an agreement took place concerning the Temple, and an end to Temple ritual, I would like to read about it. 

There is longevity here, a survivability clause, as it were. "27 ...until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him.k”" 

The abominations causing desolations do not cease until the wings of abominations which bore up the desolations of the desolater are clipped and 'him' is destroyed. That did not happen with AE IV and the only example of an A of D extant. 

I'm not going to mention AD 70 here as I see no similarities between AD 70 and, a 7 year agreement, cessation of Temple ritual, nor the continuance of abominations of the desolator up to the end of the decreed destruction.

It's also interesting that a 7 year agreement and 'middle' of the week coincide with the durations of 42 months and 1260 days from Revelation, at least on the face of it. It's not strong evidence but it is interestingly coincidental and quite compelling. imo.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Diaste

[WilliamL]

13 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

17 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Sorry,this explanation simply does not hold water with respect to the specific details provided by :40-45.

Shalom, WilliamL.

Well, that's the way these discussions usually go. Tell me, though, what is the "hole in the bucket" for you?

Short answer: there is no suggestion at all that :40-43 is a "parenthetical insert" somehow separate from :44-12:1ff. This is all a single narrative about "the time of the end." No breaks or even hints to show that the King of the North of :40-43 is not the same King of the North of :44ff. 

[WilliamL]

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

On 3/9/2023 at 7:01 AM, WilliamL said:

The "leader, the one coming in" was Vespasian, who set the overall Roman policy, which brought about the destruction of temple and city.

I could look this up but I don't believe this is accurate.

If you had only bothered to go to my cited blog link you would have seen the historical proof.

[WilliamL]

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

You don't seem to agree that one is yet to come. I could be wrong but you appear to liken Matt 24:15-21 or so to AD 70.

These statements only show that you haven't really attempted to understand much of anything I've said. Unbelievable.

Edited March 10, 2023 by WilliamL

[Retrobyter]

1 hour ago, Uriah said:

That phrase appears 5 times in Daniel. But Jesus had something about, "the abomination of desolation" and "in the holy place". Which is used in the O.T. for the "most Holy" place and the area approaching it.

Jesus speaks of the AOD in the context of end times before He returns. The Romans burned the temple because they couldn't overcome its defense. It was destroyed and they had no more Holy Place to enter! They had nothing but rubble and ashes, that is NOT the Holy Place. 

Shalom, Uriah.

It's not a phrase. It's two words put in close proximity.

The reason why I'm saying this is because these two words, regardless how they look or how close they are together, people STILL give them the combined label of "the abomination of desolation" or "AOD!" Sometimes, one or the other of the two words will be plural; sometimes, there will be other words separating them; sometimes, they will be juxtaposed; sometimes, they will be reversed; sometimes, one of the two words will be missing, and sometimes, they will be a different part of speech! It's not right to always think of them as a single "phrase!"

In Daniel 11:31, one will find the two words as "הַשִּׁקּ֥וּץ מְשֹׁומֵֽם" transliterated as "hashshiqquwts mshowmeem." Here are the definitions of these two words in Strong's:

8251 shiqquwts (shiqquts) שִׁקּוּץ (shik-koots'). Or shiqquts {shik-koots'} (שִׁקֻּ֣ץ); from shaaqats (שָׁקַץ); disgusting, i.e. Filthy; especially idolatrous or (concretely) an idol:
-- abominable filth (idol, -ation), detestable (thing).

Here, this is an ADJECTIVE, a modifier of a noun or pronoun. As a gerund in English, it can even be considered like a noun. It comes from ...

8262 shaaqats (shaqats) שָׁקַץ (shaw-kats'). A primitive root; to be filthy, i.e. (intensively) to loathe, pollute:
-- abhor, make abominable, have in abomination, detest, X utterly.

This is the root word, a VERB, that is the basis for other, similar Hebrew words.

Here in Daniel 11:31, it is treated as a noun with the article prefix "ha-". It is masculine in gender and singular in number.

 

8074 shaameem (shamem) שָׁמֵם (shaw-mame'). A primitive root; to stun (or intransitively, grow numb), i.e. Devastate or (figuratively) stupefy (both usually in a passive sense):
-- make amazed, be astonied, (be an) astonish(-ment), (be, bring into, unto, lay, lie, make) desolate(-ion, places), be destitute, destroy (self), (lay, lie, make) waste, wonder.

This word is a verb. However, it's been modified in Daniel 11:31 to be מְשׁוֹמֵֽם "mshowmeem." This word adds the "m-" prefix, generally meaning "from," and it is in the Piel stem as a participle. Here, its gender is masculine and its number is singular, corresponding to hashshiqquwts above.

So, the two words together mean "the stupifying, disgusting-thing!" This is what is meant by "abomination of desolation" in Daniel 11:31.

One could substitute "stunning" for "stupifying," but that word today is usually taken in a positive sense, like "She's a stunning beauty," and this word is NOT positive!

One or both of these words are found in Daniel 8:13, 27; 9:26, 27 (one twice); 11:31; and 12:11.

Here are the "phrases" in each verse:

Daniel 8:13 הֶחָזֹ֤ון הַתָּמִיד֙ וְהַפֶּ֣שַׁע שֹׁמֵ֔ם = "the-vision of-the-daily and-the-transgression of-desolation"

Daniel 8:27 וָאֶשְׁתֹּומֵ֥ם עַל־הַמַּרְאֶ֖ה = "and-I-was-astonished by-the-vision"

Daniel 9:26 וְעַד֙ קֵ֣ץ מִלְחָמָ֔ה נֶחֱרֶ֖צֶת שֹׁמֵמֹֽות = "and-until [the]-end of-[the]-war are-determined desolations"

Daniel 9:27a וְעַ֨ל כְּנַ֤ף שִׁקּוּצִים֙ מְשֹׁמֵ֔ם = "and-on a-spread-wing of-abominations he-shall-make-it-desolate"

Daniel 9:27b וְנֶ֣חֱרָצָ֔ה תִּתַּ֖ךְ עַל־שֹׁמֵֽם = "that-which-is-determined is-poured-out upon-[the]-desolate"

Daniel 11:31 הַשִּׁקּ֥וּץ מְשֹׁומֵֽם = "the-abomination of-desolation"

Daniel 12:11 שִׁקּ֣וּץ שֹׁמֵ֑ם = "abomination of-desolate"

1 hour ago, Uriah said:

In addition, most believe the description by Paul of the man of sin showing himself that he is God (Theos, 2 Thessalonians 2:4) is going the modern-day AOD. The description is worded, "as God sits in the Temple of God." Where should we think God would be sitting in His Temple? In the inner place behind the veil? Outside of it?

There's no doubt in my mind that there will be a "man of sin" or a "man against Torah," a "man against the Law (of God)." However, he has NOTHING to do with the "AoD!"

The Abomination of Desolation was performed by Antiochus IV "Epiphanes" in 167 B.C.

It's also important to understand that Yeeshuwa` in His "Olivet Discourse" was not talking about Daniel 11:31, which is talking about Antiochus IV before he came along. He was talking about the fulfillment of Daniel 9:27, which is talking about the "abomination" erected in the Temple in 66 A.D. that led to the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., leaving all of them STUNNED! DEVASTATED! And, they've been desolate ever since!

[Uriah]

11 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

It's not a phrase. It's two words put in close proximity

Just a little understanding; the phrase I was referring to is, "the time of the end."

12 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

"abomination" erected in the Temple in 66 A.D

Can you please point to a source for this?

[Diaste]

On 3/10/2023 at 7:14 AM, WilliamL said:

These statements only show that you haven't really attempted to understand much of anything I've said. Unbelievable.

I think that's unfair. I have tried to understand. 

What I'm hearing, and I could be wrong, is that you propose Daniel 9:24-27 has nothing to do with Jesus prophecy at the Olivet Discourse. 

You also appear to say 70 AD was the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27. Again, maybe I have that wrong. 

What I do not understand, and maybe this is the disconnect, is how Daniel 9:24-27 is 70 AD when an A of D occurred 169-167 BC; around 400 years after Daniel 9. Then Jesus prophecy at the Olivet Discourse is a coming A of D, but not 70 AD, future from 70 AD.

So Daniel 9:24-27 skips past 167 BC [the only A of D we know of] to 70 AD. Then the Olivet Discourse also skips 70 AD to some future time.

Then Daniel 11:31 is the 167 BC, AE IV, A of D. I find that odd because it sure seems your Blog on this describes enough similarities to Dan 11:29-31 one would think Daniel 9:24-27 is the same as Dan 11:29-31, to wit:

Dan 11

"At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time will not be like the first. 30Ships of Kittimg will come against him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and rage against the holy covenant and do damage. So he will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant. 31His forces will rise up and desecrate the temple fortress. They will abolish the daily sacrifice and set up the abomination of desolation."

This doesn't mention:

– any “abomination of desolation of the Holy Place [Sanctuary]” (Matt. 24:15; cf. Deut. 7:25-26 and Dan. 11:31);

– the time of the end/latter time/latter days, or any similar term;

– the Great Tribulation/“time of trouble such as never was” (Dan. 12:1);

– the saints, or any flight of God’s people;

– Messiah’s coming in the clouds, Divine Judgment, and/or the establishment of God’s kingdom;

– the King of the North’s or the Little Horn’s demise;

– or the raising of the dead.

Based on the above then, Daniel 9:24-27 is the same as Daniel 11:29-31. [Dan 11:31 doesn't say abomination of desolation of the Holy Place]

However:

32With flattery he will corrupt those who violate the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him. 33Those with insight will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by sword or flame, or be captured or plundered.

34Now when they fall, they will be granted a little help, but many will join them insincerely. 35Some of the wise will fall, so that they may be refined, purified, and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.

By your criteria Daniel 11:29-35 is the same A of D as prophesied by Jesus at the Olivet Discourse since we see 'the time of the end'.

Not enough similarity? Probably not. 

But as I mentioned previously:

On 3/10/2023 at 5:30 AM, Diaste said:

While I'm thinking Jesus prophecy in Matt 24:15 is more about the info provided, so we can understand it when we see it, I also think the Dan 9:27 prophecy shares more similarities with Matt 24:15 than Dan 11:31.

For example:

"Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed."

This clearly speaks of AD 70, imo. The 1st sentence of Dan 9:27 does not.

"27And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering."

AE IV did not do this. Neither Titus nor Vespasian did this. None confirmed a covenant for any period of time that led to stopping sacrifice and offering in the middle of that time period. For certain I have not seen it in the histories I have read about AE IV and 70 AD. Associating Dan 9:27 with Titus, Vespasian and 70 AD is a nonstarter for me.

You said in your blog:

4) Vespasian, by means of his policy #I, made covenants of peace with a number of important non-resisting cities. Essentially, he was merely “confirming” Romeʼs original covenant with the Jews, which allowed them – uniquely among the peoples of the Empire – to practice only their own mono-theistic religion, provided that they submitted to Roman civil authority.

According to the record by Josephus,

The Jewish War, Whiston version; Preface 8: [Vespasian] took…some of its [Galilee’s] cities by treaties, and on terms.

III:2:4 …the inhabitants of Sepphoris…the largest city of Galilee…received Vespasian, the Roman general, very kindly, and readily promised that they would assist him…

III:9:8 Now the seniors of the people [of Tiberius]…fell down before Vespasian, to supplicate his favor… Vespasian…accepted of their rights hands by way of security…[and] the citizens opened to him their gates…

What were those terms? According to Dan 9:27 the duration was 7 years. Submitting to Roman civil authority would survive as long as the empire stood. It's why the war began, rebelling against Roman civil authority. Maybe Vespasian did allow a 7 year term. Where is the evidence of that?

On 3/10/2023 at 5:30 AM, Diaste said:

"Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed. 27And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week,i but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation,j until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him.k”"

There is clearly a break in the narrative here, imo. The Temple gets destroyed along with the city in Dan 9:26. How is it the sacrifice and offering are stopped in the middle of the week when the Temple is already laid to ruin? 

You write:

"VI:2:1 …on that very day, which was the seventeenth day of Panemus, [Tamuz,] the sacrifice called “the Daily Sacrifice” had failed, and had not been offered to God, for want of men to offer it, and that the people were grievously troubled at it…"

But in Book 6:2:3

 ³ So he earnestly prayed them to spare their own city, and to prevent that fire which was just ready to seize upon the temple, and to offer their usual sacrifices to God therein. At these words of his a great sadness and silence were observed among the people. But the tyrant himself cast many reproaches upon Josephus, with imprecations besides; and at last added this withal, that he did never fear the taking of the city, because it was God's own city. In answer to which Josephus said thus with a loud voice: "To be sure thou hast kept this city wonderfully pure for God's sake; the temple also continues entirely unpolluted! Nor hast thou been guilty of ally impiety against him for whose assistance thou hopest! He still receives his accustomed sacrifices! Vile wretch that thou art! if any one should deprive thee of thy daily food, thou wouldst esteem him to be an enemy to thee; but thou hopest to have that God for thy supporter in this war whom thou hast deprived of his everlasting worship; and thou imputest those sins to the Romans, who to this very time take care to have our laws observed, and almost compel these sacrifices to be still offered to God, which have by thy means been intermitted! Who is there that can avoid groans and lamentations at the amazing change that is made in this city? since very foreigners and enemies do now correct that impiety which thou hast occasioned; while thou, who art a Jew, and wast educated in our laws, art become a greater enemy to them than the others. But still, John, it is never dishonorable to repent, and amend what hath been done amiss, even at the last extremity. Thou hast an instance before thee in Jechoniah,"

Seems John the Jew stopped the sacrifices, or at least didn't provide resources all while the Romans supported continued Temple ritual. And this has to be associated with a 7 year agreement, which needs evidence, and the midpoint of the week.

 Again, Dan 9:27 doesn't seem to fit 70 AD.

On 3/10/2023 at 5:30 AM, Diaste said:

This is the prophecy of AE IV in Dan 11:

"Then he will turn back and rage against the holy covenant and do damage. So he will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant. 31His forces will rise up and desecrate the temple fortress. They will abolish the daily sacrifice and set up the abomination of desolation."

Nothing about an agreement here. Not saying any agreement within the above didn't exist, but it's not mentioned. It's not up to me to say if one did or didn't occur within this prophecy. I can only go with, "It's not mentioned, therefore, there is no agreement here." That means it's not the same as Dan 9:27.

To amend the above, I'm not convinced Dan 11:29-35 is AE IV. Maybe AE IV was a type that fit, but not the complete prophecy.

On 3/10/2023 at 5:30 AM, Diaste said:

" And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation,j until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him.”"

Back to Daniel 9:27. As I see the above sentence, it must be associated with the agreement for one week, and the ending of the sacrifice and offering. So this A of D again is associated with a 7 year agreement and an end of temple ritual. If such an agreement took place concerning the Temple, and an end to Temple ritual, I would like to read about it. 

There is longevity here, a survivability clause, as it were. "27 ...until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him.k”" 

The abominations causing desolations do not cease until the wings of abominations which bore up the desolations of the desolater are clipped and 'him' is destroyed. That did not happen with AE IV and the only example of an A of D extant. 

I'm not going to mention AD 70 here as I see no similarities between AD 70 and, a 7 year agreement, cessation of Temple ritual, nor the continuance of abominations of the desolator up to the end of the decreed destruction.

It's also interesting that a 7 year agreement and 'middle' of the week coincide with the durations of 42 months and 1260 days from Revelation, at least on the face of it. It's not strong evidence but it is interestingly coincidental and quite compelling. imo.