PDA

View Full Version : Discussion More on Daniel 9:27



DurbanDude
Nov 17th 2008, 12:13 PM
NIV
He will confirm a covenant with many for one seven. In the middle of the seven he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

NIV Footnote
He will confirm a covenant with many for one seven. In the middle of the seven he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And one who causes desolation will come on the wing of the abominable, until the end that is decreed is poured out on the desolated.

Amplified
And he shall enter into a strong and firm covenant with the many for one week [seven years]. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and offering to cease [for the remaining three and one-half years]; and upon the wing or pinnacle of abominations [shall come] one who makes desolate, until the full determined end is poured out on the desolator

KJV
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.

NASB
And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations `shall come' one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall `wrath' be poured out upon the desolate

Darby
And he shall confirm a covenant with the many [for] one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and because of the protection of abominations [there shall be] a desolator, even until that the consumption and what is determined shall be poured out upon the desolate.

Webster
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

World English
He shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and on the wing of abominations [shall come] one who makes desolate; and even to the full end, and that determined, shall [wrath] be poured out on the desolate.

Youngs
And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and `in' the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one.'

It is interesting to note that the two most common views on Daniel 9:27 would not fit into more than half of the translations listed.

A)The view that Jesus fulfils both "halves" of the verse (preterist) cannot fit into all the bible interpretations above colored blue.

B)The view that a future antichrist will fulfil both "halves" (futurist) of Daniel 9:27 also cannot fit into all the bible interpretations above colored blue.

I say that we have to look into a further interpretation that can encompass the best parts of both views and fits into the blue interpretations , two separate people that are involved, one confirms a covenant and one that sets up the abomination.

If we don't explore this option then we are just keeping our heads in the sand hoping our particular translation is the correct one. Unfortunately I haven't got the time now to explain it , will add a post later.

DurbanDude
Nov 17th 2008, 02:58 PM
I didn't want to derail vinsight's thread with a whole new discussion topic, so started this thread.

What if the preterists are right and Jesus did confirm the covenant?

Remember if you have no preconceived ideas, all you would be looking for is a man who confirms a covenant 483 years (69x7) after a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. One seven before the completion of the 490 year period.

This would happen at the same time as the coming of the Messiah , because the coming of the Messiah also happens at 483 years according to Daniel 9:25. So the Messiah comes and Jesus himself confirms right at the beginning of his ministry that he is the fulfilment of Isaiah , God's covenant to send a saviour to free the Jews. So the greatest ever covenant is confirmed at the right timing of the 70 sevens. If one had no pre-conceived ideas , the first part of the verse would be fulfilled with ease.

Referring to the phrase "and HE will confirm the covenant ,the only problem with this is that some say that the last mentioned male figure is not Jesus , but is another ruler associated with the people who destroy the temple and the sanctuary.

9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
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.

So some people say that because of a rule of English grammar, the "he" that confirms the covenant has to refer to the last male , the prince, and can't refer to the Messiah,therefore it is this prince that will confirm the covenant. I am saying that this rule of English grammar does not apply to the bible at all, because it was not written in English.

eg: If this was a strict rule of biblical grammar read this:

Micah 5:5 And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.
5:6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

The blue "he" does not keep that rule of grammar.

And read this;

2 Thess 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders

In other words, the wording shows us that the main character of the chapter or paragraph can just as easily be referred to as he or him , not only the last male person.

Jesus did confirm a great covenant at year 483, but the biblical "he" also puts an end to sacrifice and offering halfway through the seven years. Did Jesus do this? YES , the crucifixion. I don't even need to explain the significance of Jesus crucifixion and how sacrifices are no longer needed , this is a Christian site. This happened 3.5 years after Jesus began His ministry.

At this point I differ from the preterists and agree with the futurists, I do not see all the promises of Daniel 9:24 as having been fulfilled, and see no significant event 3.5 years after the crucifixion that would end the 490 year timeline.

The setting up of the abomination will be the starting point of the last 3.5 years of covenant relationship of Jesus with the Jews as their Messiah, during the 3.5 year tribulation period. Isn't it interesting to note that there is no mention of a peace treaty in the New Testament and all periods mentioned are 3.5 years long and not 7 years.

There is so much biblical evidence to support various aspects of this that this post could go on forever, but will end it here.

Conclusion: I believe 486.5 years of the 490 year period have been fulfilled and the tribulation will be only 3.5 years long.

Back2Front
Nov 17th 2008, 04:48 PM
I mean... it really takes some work to put the ability to justify saying these things through scripture. This Daniel 9 verse is a new one to me. Wow people... WOW! I mean really DurbanDude? People even use scriptures like these to justify Christian lawlessness? Not saying that it's you, it's just that the one you're pointing out here is a new one to me.

I just can't believe how much work it takes for those to justify the putting away of Gods law and decrees in their walk, all so they can feel comfortable to be able to say things like:

"I fall short and it doesn't matter anymore because Jesus saved us.'

"The law doesn't apply to us."

"We are under a new covenant which means the law was thrown into the garbage by Jesus."

"The law is only for Jews." (which is actually kinda right)

"We are not Jewish." (which is actually kinda right)

"We have Grace so the law is completely irrelevant."

So if your not Jewish, never were Jewish, and the Law only applied to the Jews, what is it that you fall short of and fail in? and don't say "THE GRACE OF GOD" either because that grace has a measuring pole. That pole is how Christ lived the law, setting the example for us, and commanding us to follow it the same way. Grace is not some mysterious or hypothetical thing. Christ is not saying "Well... pfft... you're not God so don't even bother trying to follow the law the way I have. I'll live the law for you and die so you don't have to even try anymore." Of course there are many scriptures that PAUL wrote that people will say, "yeah man... that is exactly what Christ meant when he said to follow his example, you don't have to follow his example or the law! See Paul says it right here..."

Why is it these days that every sermon or even post you might see and hear either is about how we are no longer under the law, or has a very strong subtext saying the same?

Even stranger, the need that some feel to constantly be trying to convince themselves and others of the same. As if there is some big Judahizing conspiracy that is always surrounding them and trying to put them under the law. Like there is a roving gang of guys in funny hats trying to impose the LAW of God on people, that so much effort has to be put into this counter doctrine to protect us from these Judahizing meanies. Which we know is not true. What is actually true is the massive need to twist as much scripture as possible to deaden a convicted conscience through the law. Because hey if we throw away the law, no more conviction right???

SO REALLY? They're going after Daniel and those scriptures too??? Lets just start the lawless anarchy right now. WE have Christ and his mysterious saving grace to cover us in our anarchy so why not?

The end to sacrifice and offering? HA! As if the Abomination even has to tell some big lie to make this covenant. The abomination will just take a seat and Christian doctrines like these will applaud him for doing it. The lie is already being told, and the Christian anti-law doctrines are how the world is being taught to buy it.

Diolectic
Nov 17th 2008, 04:54 PM
NIV
And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations `shall come' one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall `wrath' be poured out upon the desolate
It is interesting to note that the two most common views on Daniel 9:27 would not fit into more than half of the translations listed.

A)The view that Jesus fulfils both "halves" of the verse (preterist) cannot fit into all the bible interpretations above colored blue.

B)The view that a future antichrist will fulfil both "halves" (futurist) of Daniel 9:27 also cannot fit into all the bible interpretations above colored blue.

I say that we have to look into a further interpretation that can encompass the best parts of both views and fits into the blue interpretations , two separate people that are involved, one confirms a covenant and one that sets up the abomination.

If we don't explore this option then we are just keeping our heads in the sand hoping our particular translation is the correct one. Unfortunately I haven't got the time now to explain it , will add a post later.In context with the verse before, it makes sense that the "HE" is the Prince of the the people that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary(Daniel 9:26)

Romulus
Nov 17th 2008, 05:35 PM
Here is the Septuagint into english version:

Daniel 9

9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint [the city] to desolations.

9:27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple [shall be] the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.

The original Septuagint never limited the Covenant to 7 years. It stated that the Covenant would be established within 7 years. Notice the addition of "my sacrifice and drink-offering". Grammatically the addition of the "my" reinforces that the prophecy concerns Jesus, not antichrist. Also, notice that in verse 26 that it states clearly "And after the sixty-two weeks. After the sixty weeks is clear that we are NOW in the seventieth week. What is after the 62 weeks but the last week? If we do not acknowledge this we must now insert a gap of an undetermined amount of time. Christ's crucifixion was within the last 7 years(Seventieth Week.) If every group of 7 years was consecutive, there is nothing to warrent removing the last week 2000+ years into the future.

If we do not see fulfillment in 490 years and add any amount of time until it is fulfilled whether 1 year or 2000 years destroys the prophecy. We cannot in good conscience call it the prophecy of the seventy sevens. Also, the angel was messing around with peoples heads by saying it would be fulfilled in "seventy sevens" or 490 years but an undetermined period of time.

We must have fulfillment in 490 years.

God Bless!

mfowler12
Nov 17th 2008, 06:40 PM
Here is the Septuagint into english version:

Daniel 9

9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint [the city] to desolations.

9:27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple [shall be] the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.

The original Septuagint never limited the Covenant to 7 years. It stated that the Covenant would be established within 7 years. Notice the addition of "my sacrifice and drink-offering". Grammatically the addition of the "my" reinforces that the prophecy concerns Jesus, not antichrist. Also, notice that in verse 26 that it states clearly "And after the sixty-two weeks. After the sixty weeks is clear that we are NOW in the seventieth week. What is after the 62 weeks but the last week? If we do not acknowledge this we must now insert a gap of an undetermined amount of time. Christ's crucifixion was within the last 7 years(Seventieth Week.) If every group of 7 years was consecutive, there is nothing to warrent removing the last week 2000+ years into the future.

If we do not see fulfillment in 490 years and add any amount of time until it is fulfilled whether 1 year or 2000 years destroys the prophecy. We cannot in good conscience call it the prophecy of the seventy sevens. Also, the angel was messing around with peoples heads by saying it would be fulfilled in "seventy sevens" or 490 years but an undetermined period of time.

We must have fulfillment in 490 years.

God Bless!

So God sent Gabriel to mess with Daniel's head? To confuse him? That does not sound like God to me.

Also, this "my" you are talking about; what version is that from? I've checked the NIV, The Message, NASB, NJKV, and the Amplified Bible.

Romulus
Nov 17th 2008, 07:50 PM
So God sent Gabriel to mess with Daniel's head? To confuse him? That does not sound like God to me.

Also, this "my" you are talking about; what version is that from? I've checked the NIV, The Message, NASB, NJKV, and the Amplified Bible.

We agree that the angel was not sent to fool with Daniel's head. I believe that the angel meant what he said: that the prophecy would be fulfilled in seventy sevens or 70 7's=490 years. If he did not mean 490 years then what conclusion must we come up with is that the angel did not mean what he said.

The Septuagint into English version by Brenton was exactly that, the translation of the original Septuagint into English. This included the books of the old testament only. The LXX or the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the original Hebrew texts. The Septuagint was translated anywhere from the 3rd to 1st century B.C. and existed from that time forward and would have been used by Jews and Christians alike in Christ's time.

It gives a different version then current translations that state the "he" would confirm a covenant with many "for" seven years. The Septuagint never stated this. The Septuagint stated that within 7 years the Covenant with many would be established. It was at the Last Supper:

This is my blood of the New Covenant, shed for many for the forgiveness of sins

Some later translations have "confirm" a covenant but even that is an argument that must point to Christ and not the Beast. What Covenant would the Beast confirm? Making a peace treaty with Israel is not "confirming" a covenant with many. Scripturaly what Covenant was in effect in the time that Daniel was given the prophecy? It was the Old Covenant which was confirmed in Christ within the 70th week.

There were only 2 Covenants in scripture. Neither was a peace treaty of any kind. There was only the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

markedward
Nov 17th 2008, 08:09 PM
The futurist says: "There's a gap in the 70 weeks, between week 69 and week 70."

Okay... in that case, if God was just going to hit the "pause" button, what was the point of setting a 70 'week' time limit on the prophecy if it wouldn't be fulfilled within a consecutive 70 'week' timeframe?

To try and interpret the 70 weeks as having an arbitrary multi-thousand-year gap in it completely contradicts the whole point of having a time-limit for the prophecies to begin with. Meaning, if God knew ahead of time that the prophecies would not be fulfilled in a consecutive 70-week timeframe, what was the point of setting a timeframe that wouldn't be kept?

Diolectic
Nov 17th 2008, 08:56 PM
The futurist says: "There's a gap in the 70 weeks, between week 69 and week 70."

Okay... in that case, if God was just going to hit the "pause" button, what was the point of setting a 70 'week' time limit on the prophecy if it wouldn't be fulfilled within a consecutive 70 'week' timeframe?

To try and interpret the 70 weeks as having an arbitrary multi-thousand-year gap in it completely contradicts the whole point of having a time-limit for the prophecies to begin with. Meaning, if God knew ahead of time that the prophecies would not be fulfilled in a consecutive 70-week timeframe, what was the point of setting a timeframe that wouldn't be kept?I am a one who sees a "paus button" being pressed.
Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.
:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
When did the "fullness of the Gentiles come in"?
Was the "ungodliness of Jacob" turned away?
Is "all Israel saved?
When was the "time of Jacob's trouble"
When was Dan. 9:27 fullfied?

David Taylor
Nov 17th 2008, 10:00 PM
When did the "fullness of the Gentiles come in"?

It is now presently, in the process of coming in. Another phrase for it is the N.T. Harvest; the fruit of the great commission; first in Jerusalem, then Judaea, then all of the world. (to quote Peter).



Was the "ungodliness of Jacob" turned away?
When Christ took the sins of Jacob upon Himself on the cross of Calvary would be a good start.

That is 'the Deliverer' that the O.T. prophets were looking forward to.


Is "all Israel saved?
Again, it is in the process of being saved...Peter wrote of it in Acts chapter two already at that point being underway to 'all the house of israel and her children, from that generation ontward'.


When was the "time of Jacob's trouble"
The context of Jeremiah 29-31 was the Babylonian Captivity circa 522 B.C.


When was Dan. 9:27 fullfied?
At the cross; when Messiah the Prince was put to death; as the final sacfrice; and that sacrifice caused an end forever of sacrifice and offerings.

Cyberseeker
Nov 17th 2008, 10:05 PM
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come (troops of Titus) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; (ad70) and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he (Messiah) shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week (3½ yrs after baptism) He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. (veil of temple torn) And on the wing of abominations (atonement sacrifices after the cross was an abomination) shall be one who makes desolate, (Titus) even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate." (Gods judgement on Jerusalem from ad70 until the times of the gentiles finish)

(Dan 9: 26,27 NKJV with my notes added)

http://www.5loaves2fishes.net/diagrams/70weeks.gif

John146
Nov 17th 2008, 10:33 PM
I am a one who sees a "paus button" being pressed.
Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.
:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
When did the "fullness of the Gentiles come in"?
Was the "ungodliness of Jacob" turned away?
Is "all Israel saved?
When was the "time of Jacob's trouble"
When was Dan. 9:27 fullfied?The Deliverer already came to turn ungodliness away from Jacob and take away their sins.

Acts 3
25Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Matthew 26
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

third hero
Nov 17th 2008, 10:45 PM
Here is the Septuagint into english version:

Daniel 9

9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint [the city] to desolations.

9:27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple [shall be] the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.

God Bless!


This statement itself has shown me one thing. I do not know as muich as I thought I did concerning the 70 weeks in Daniel. If what Romulus said is true, then it is very possible that the seventy weeks are fulfilled, and thus we should move on with the NT signs, adn leave at least Daniel 9 behind. (Although I say that Daniel 7 is still in effect).

However, I am not that willing to just say, yup, Batman is right. No, I must study this a lot more, and I shall. Until I find compelling evidence, (or in this case, colaborating evidence from the Septuagine), I wil continue to believe that there is a pause button that has been pressed when Jerusalem and the Temple was destroyed.

Diolectic
Nov 17th 2008, 11:17 PM
When did the "fullness of the Gentiles come in"?It is now presently, in the process of coming in. Another phrase for it is the N.T. Harvest; the fruit of the great commission; first in Jerusalem, then Judaea, then all of the world. (to quote Peter).
Then the true nation of Israel is still blind & Isreal is not saved.
Because the gentiles who will be saved beclme part of Israel.


Was the "ungodliness of Jacob" turned away?
When Christ took the sins of Jacob upon Himself on the cross of Calvary would be a good start.
That is 'the Deliverer' that the O.T. prophets were looking forward to.



Is "all Israel saved?Again, it is in the process of being saved...Peter wrote of it in Acts chapter two already at that point being underway to 'all the house of israel and her children, from that generation ontward'.How do you say that ungodlyness of Jacob has been taken away?



When was Dan. 9:27 fullfied?At the cross; when Messiah the Prince was put to death; as the final sacfrice; and that sacrifice caused an end forever of sacrifice and offerings.
That would be Dan 9:26:
And after the sixty-two weeks which is 434 years (note: the 434 years, plus the 49 years, equals a total of 483 years total),
shall Messiah which is Jesus Christ or the Anointed One will
be cut off or killed or Isa 53:8 for he was cut off out of the land of the living. Jesus Christ was crucified
but not for himself He did not die for Himself, Jesus never sinned. He died for those who should trust on Him as their Lord and Savior.

When will the "he" confirm the covenant with many for one week or seven years?

Furthermore, Jesus never did cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease even after 3& 1/2 years after His resurrection.

Cyberseeker
Nov 18th 2008, 01:57 AM
Furthermore, Jesus never did cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease even after 3& 1/2 years after His resurrection.

Are you aware of how much damage was done to the inner sanctuary by the earthquake in AD30? Sacrifice ceased alright. However historical records do not tell us for how long.

And when the Jewish leaders resumed sacrifice they did so in defiance of God. Hence the term 'overspreading of abominations.' (KJV) The overspreading of abominations was the resumption of the Day of atonement sacrifice after God had caused it to cease.

Hence the destruction of the temple, not simply by the Romans, but by God's will. At which point it ceased forever!

DurbanDude
Nov 18th 2008, 05:59 AM
In context with the verse before, it makes sense that the "HE" is the Prince of the the people that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary(Daniel 9:26)

I think that I covered this problem of the "he" in my second post?

DurbanDude
Nov 18th 2008, 06:08 AM
If we do not see fulfillment in 490 years and add any amount of time until it is fulfilled whether 1 year or 2000 years destroys the prophecy. We cannot in good conscience call it the prophecy of the seventy sevens. Also, the angel was messing around with peoples heads by saying it would be fulfilled in "seventy sevens" or 490 years but an undetermined period of time.

We must have fulfillment in 490 years.

God Bless!


I agree with you that we should have fulfilment in 490 years , but history says it was not fulfilled then. I think preterists try too hard to over spiritualise when it suits their doctrine. I personally still see sin in Jerusalem to this day, which contradicts the fulfilment of Daniel 9:24, and I am not satisfied with the spiritual removal of sin explanation, which also only happened in the 486th year and not 490th year. I have never heard of a good explanation of the ending point of the 490 years, when it is , and proof of dating.

The reason for the gap is that the 490 year period is for the Jews only. It is interrupted by a period of significance for all nations, this gentile period is very clear in doctrine. It starts at the crucifixion and ends with the abomination (revealing of the lawless one)

markedward
Nov 18th 2008, 06:17 AM
First, can you explain why God would set a 490 year time-limit to the prophecies if He knew ahead of time that they wouldn't be fulfilled within the 490-year time-limit?

Please don't just skip the question and respond with something like, "It wasn't fulfilled, so thus it wasn't consecutive." Explain why it wasn't consecutive, when the very nature of the prophecy - being that a time-limit of 490 years was "decreed" - implicates that it was supposed to be consecutive. Use Scripture to explain why it wasn't consecutive. If you can't build any support for the the "gap" using Scripture (I've not yet seen anyone who believes in the "gap" to use supporting Scripture), then it's purely faulty reasoning to claim "It wasn't fulfilled". Either the prophecy wasn't supposed to be fulfilled in 490 consecutive years but Scripture fails to point this out, or else a faulty understanding of its fulfillments is taking place.

ross3421
Nov 18th 2008, 06:20 AM
NIV
[COLOR=red
I say that we have to look into a further interpretation that can encompass the best parts of both views and fits into the blue interpretations , two separate people that are involved, one confirms a covenant and one that sets up the abomination.

If we don't explore this option then we are just keeping our heads in the sand hoping our particular translation is the correct one. Unfortunately I haven't got the time now to explain it , will add a post later.

I have and been stating the following for some time but nobody is listening..................... The entire 70 weeks details the second coming.

The 70 weeks are just that weeks not years.


Mark

DurbanDude
Nov 18th 2008, 06:24 AM
The end to sacrifice and offering? HA! As if the Abomination even has to tell some big lie to make this covenant. The abomination will just take a seat and Christian doctrines like these will applaud him for doing it. The lie is already being told, and the Christian anti-law doctrines are how the world is being taught to buy it.

Sorry Back2Front , didn't really understand your post.:hmm: I believe the sign that we have been taught repeatedly to watch out for , in the gospels, in Daniel , in Thessalonians and in Revelation is the sign of the abomination on the temple grounds, that is the man who claims to be God. I just don't believe we have to watch for anyone confirming any covenant earlier.

Sacrifices acceptable to God ended at the crucifixion because Jesus was the last sacrifice. This is confirmed in Hebrews.
7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Maybe you are not familiar with these discussions , but many base their doctrine of a seven year tribulation period on Daniel 9:27 because there are no other verses in the bible that mention a seven year tribulation period , thus the significance of this debate.

DurbanDude
Nov 18th 2008, 06:32 AM
I have and been stating the following for some time but nobody is listening..................... The entire 70 weeks details the second coming.

The 70 weeks are just that weeks not years.


Mark


So Mark, you believe that approximately 1 year and a few months (483 days) before the second coming, a decree will be issued to restore Jerusalem , then 49 days before the end, Jesus will come. Then 24.5 days (half of a seven week period) before the end, the abomination will be set up?

I think there are many verse that speak of a 3.5 year period that would contradict this ,verses that mention 1260 days,time,times and half a time, 42 months and indicate the authority of satan on earth for that 3.5year period.

DurbanDude
Nov 18th 2008, 07:05 AM
First, can you explain why God would set a 490 year time-limit to the prophecies if He knew ahead of time that they wouldn't be fulfilled within the 490-year time-limit?

.

Scripture doesn't always point out the reason for gaps. For example in Daniel 12:2 the two resurrections , the righteous and the unrighteous are mentioned as happening together , yet in Rev 20 they are mentioned happening 1000 years apart. In Matthew 24 the second coming and the judgement of the unrighteous (thrown into the lake of fire) are mentioned together yet in Rev 20 they occur 1000 years apart, the unrighteous are only thrown into the lake of fire at the end of the millenium period. Isaiah 52:14,15 puts the first coming (Jesus being marred) and the second coming (kings being shut up before Jesus) together without any attempt to show they are many years apart (if I'm not mistaken preterists place the first and second comings at least 40 years apart , futurists place this gap at more than 2000 years apart).

It is often only after the events when the one event has been fulfilled yet the other part of scripture has not been fulfilled that we realise there is a gap. So there is no need for the bible to explain.

Despite this point that I make , there is a specific reason for the gap , the 490 year period, if read in context, is a period of significance for the Jews. It is only broken by a period of significance to the nations. I am sure that I don't need to explain to you the significance of the crucifixion, that it was this moment that brought salvation to the gentiles. We just have to read the doctrines in the epistles that are written to non-Jewish churches to confirm that it was the crucifixion and not any event relating to Cornelius or Peter'svision that brought salvation to the gentiles. Then when the gospel is preached to all nations God will turn his eyes back to the Jews in the final 3.5 year period. The break in the timeline of the period of significance for the Jews, is the period of significance for the gentiles.

Paul writes to the Romans:
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not think you are superior: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in

markedward
Nov 18th 2008, 07:27 AM
Scripture doesn't always point out the reason for gaps. For example in Daniel 12:2 the two resurrections , the righteous and the unrighteous are mentioned as happening together , yet in Rev 20 they are mentioned happening 1000 years apart.I assume you're interpreting Revelation 20:11-15 as speaking of only the unrighteous? Where does it say that? Compare the second half of Revelation 11 to 20:11-15. They speak of the same events, yes? They both speak of "the judgment of the dead". They each even use the same phrasing of "the great and the small" (or however it goes). Yet you'll notice that Revelation 11 says both the good and the wicked will be judged, and 20:11-15 does not exclude the righteous... take a careful note of the word "if" in there. "If anyone's name is not found in the book of life"... Meaning there are people at that judgment whose names will be found in it, and others whose names won't be found in it. There's no gap in Daniel 12:2 between the righteous and unrighteous.


In Matthew 24 the second coming and the judgement of the unrighteous (thrown into the lake of fire) are mentioned together yet in Rev 20 they occur 1000 years apart, the unrighteous are only thrown into the lake of fire at the end of the millenium period.I assume you mean Matthew 25, which mentions the throne judgment.

Try reading the Revelation without chapters and verses. Revelation 20:11-15 (for reference) flows right into 21. 20:15 tells us about the reward of the unrighteous, while what follows (21) tells of what awaits the righteous.

You also seem to be confusing the first resurrection, found early in Revelation 20, as being all righteous people. It specifically says it is only the people who were martyred during the tribulation at the hand's the beast. What about all of the righteous people before, during, and after them who died of causes other than the beast? They are in the second resurrection, the throne judgment.

Of all of these, you assume there is a gap between the judgments of the righteous and unrighteous. Yet Daniel 12:2, Matthew 25, and Revelation 11 each state that both the righteous and unrighteous are judged at the same time... probably because they are? You're reading gaps into the text that are not found there...


Isaiah 52:14,15 puts the first coming (Jesus being marred) and the second coming (kings being shut up before Jesus) together without any attempt to show they are many years apartThat's because it's not presenting any sort of chronology.


I am sure that I don't need to explain to you the significance of the crucifixion, that it was this moment that brought salvation to the gentiles.

Then when the gospel is preached to all nations God will turn his eyes back to the Jews in the final 3.5 year period. The break in the timeline of the period of significance for the Jews, is the period of significance for the gentiles.I'm calling you out on this one. You're claiming here that God was using the crucifixion to bring salvation to the Gentiles and that the Jews are being ignored by God until "the final 3.5 year period" when "God will turn his eyes back to the Jews".

This directly contradicts Jesus' statement that He came "for the lost sheep of Israel", Paul's numerous statements such as "there is neither Jew nor Greek", that Paul directly stated that Peter was an "apostle to the Jews" at least two decades after his own conversion, the numerous examples in the book of Acts of the apostles (including Paul) preaching to Jews in the years following Christ's ascension, and the historical fact that all of the places that Paul wrote his letters to had large Jewish populations.

To claim that God hit "pause" at the end of the 69th week and has yet to "start" the 70th week, and that during this "pause" God is ignoring the Jews until "the final 3.5 year period" is in direct contradiction to Scriptural statements that there is no spiritual distinction between Gentiles and Jews in the light of the New Covenant, and that the apostles (including Paul) preached to Jews on numerous occasions - all within this alleged "gap" time period in which you claim God is ignoring the Jews until "the final 3.5 year time period".

DurbanDude
Nov 18th 2008, 07:29 AM
Here is the Septuagint into english version:



Many bibles include the Septuagint as one of their souces. Most bibles interpreters try to use sources direct from Hebrew, instead of Hebrew to Greek to English. So far I have not focussed on the relative merits of each translation , just assuming that if more than half of bible translations are saying that two separate people are involved in Daniel 9:27 they have their reasons for such interpretaions. It is strange that after my OP I have not yet even had one mention of the fact that more than half of English translations contradict all standard amill and pre-mill beliefs on Daniel 9:27. A head-in-the-sand approach?? Interesting!

DurbanDude
Nov 18th 2008, 07:57 AM
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come (troops of Titus) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; (ad70) and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he (Messiah) shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week (3½ yrs after baptism) He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. (veil of temple torn) And on the wing of abominations (atonement sacrifices after the cross was an abomination) shall be one who makes desolate, (Titus) even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate." (Gods judgement on Jerusalem from ad70 until the times of the gentiles finish)

(Dan 9: 26,27 NKJV with my notes added)

http://www.5loaves2fishes.net/diagrams/70weeks.gif

Nice explanation and timeline. I prefer this explanation to the other one that preterists use where they say the abomination happened in 70 AD. What I don't like about this timeline is that dates can be found for the other events (decree , Messiah, crucifixion) but the event of 33 AD can't be confirmed by scripture or history. And if it could be confirmed,the fact that the timeline is 490 years until the events of Daniel 9:24 are fulfilled , yet your own theory states these are fulfilled 3.5 years too early at the crucifixion is also a concern. (It only took 486.5 years)

Additionally the fact that there is a period of 3.5 years that starts with the abomination and ends with the day of the Lord is a consistent theme throughout the New Testament and Daniel. To say the second half of Daniel isn't that period of 3.5 years when it really does sound like the same period with the same terminology is difficult to swallow.

DurbanDude
Nov 18th 2008, 08:29 AM
I assume you're interpreting Revelation 20:11-15 as speaking of only the unrighteous? Where does it say that? Compare the second half of Revelation 11 to 20:11-15. They speak of the same events, yes? They both speak of "the judgment of the dead". They each even use the same phrasing of "the great and the small" (or however it goes). Yet you'll notice that Revelation 11 says both the good and the wicked will be judged, and 20:11-15 does not exclude the righteous... take a careful note of the word "if" in there. "If anyone's name is not found in the book of life"... Meaning there are people at that judgment whose names will be found in it, and others whose names won't be found in it. There's no gap in Daniel 12:2 between the righteous and unrighteous.

Note , I was talking about Resurrections and not judgements here. Rev 20 has two clear resurrections , Rev 20:5,6 and 1000 years later Rev 20:12,13

Daniel 12:2 has one:

Daniel 12:1 .... and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.





I assume you mean Matthew 25, which mentions the throne judgment.


Yes, sorry I did mean Matthew 25. Let the scripture speak for itself:

25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Rev:
20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,.................

20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I don't see the need to argue this any further, any reader of the two points of view can read the scriptures for themselves. It is apparent to me that Matthew 25 refers to the judgment of the unrighteous being cast into the fire at the same time as the second coming , and yet Rev 20 separates the two events by 1000 years , there is a gap.



I'm calling you out on this one. You're claiming here that God was using the crucifixion to bring salvation to the Gentiles and that the Jews are being ignored by God until "the final 3.5 year period" when "God will turn his eyes back to the Jews".
.

All you say here is right , in this period Jews and Christians are treated alike, its just a matter of focus. The focus is on all nations for now, with no special focus on the Jews as it was during Jesus' ministry.

Cyberseeker
Nov 18th 2008, 09:12 AM
... but the event of 33 AD can't be confirmed by scripture or history.

I believe it can be confirmed by both.


And if it could be confirmed,the fact that the timeline is 490 years until the events of Daniel 9:24 are fulfilled , yet your own theory states these are fulfilled 3.5 years too early at the crucifixion is also a concern. (It only took 486.5 years)

The atonement (Dan 9:24) took place in the middle of the final 'week.' The end of the 'times of Jacob' / beginning 'times of the Gentiles' began 3.5 years later in AD33.

The final 3.5 years was a transition period during which the gospel was reserved for Jacob. Then the Church open the doors to the Gentiles. (Act 10:47) The last 3.5 years happened like clockwork - just as the previous 486.5 had done.

A total of 490 years, finished.

DurbanDude
Nov 18th 2008, 09:45 AM
I believe it can be confirmed by both.
.

So you are saying that the event that ended the 490 year period was whenthe first Gentiles got saved?

10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

As far as I know the first gentile saved and baptised was the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8 , before Acts 10.

Can you tell me your methods , historical and biblical, of dating Acts 10:47 to 33 AD?

Cyberseeker
Nov 18th 2008, 10:43 AM
The ending of the 'times of Jacob' and the beginning of the 'times of the gentiles' are two sides of the same coin.

The prophecy of Daniel made it quite clear. Israel had 490 years to go. "Seventy 'sevens' are determined upon ..."

As for the the conversion of Cornelius, chronologists tend to date it later but I believe it was AD33. Also the Church fathers put far more importance on it than we do today and they identify it with the start of the conversion of the gentiles.

Ill have to wait another time to detail my chronology though. Big job. :rolleyes: But I wanted to summarize my view here so you had it to chew on. ;)

Romulus
Nov 18th 2008, 04:00 PM
Are you aware of how much damage was done to the inner sanctuary by the earthquake in AD30? Sacrifice ceased alright. However historical records do not tell us for how long.

And when the Jewish leaders resumed sacrifice they did so in defiance of God. Hence the term 'overspreading of abominations.' (KJV) The overspreading of abominations was the resumption of the Day of atonement sacrifice after God had caused it to cease.

Hence the destruction of the temple, not simply by the Romans, but by God's will. At which point it ceased forever!

Cyberseeker,

Also remember that even if history doesn't verify that the sacrifices and offerings did cease for a time the focus of this scripture is from God's perspective, not man's. If man continued sacrifices for the next 2000 years it is utterly irrelevant. As far as God is concerned the sacrifices and offerings ceased at the death of His Son who became the final sacrifice. The fulfillment was accomplished at the cross. The Old Covenant sacrificial system became null and void at the cross in light oif Christ's sacrifice. That is what Daniel was looking at, not the act of making sacrifices which did continue after the cross(after a pause?) but as far as atonement was concerned. Earthly Sacrifice and drink offerings were no longer valid in light of Christ.

Would you agree?



Nice explanation and timeline. I prefer this explanation to the other one that preterists use where they say the abomination happened in 70 AD. What I don't like about this timeline is that dates can be found for the other events (decree , Messiah, crucifixion) but the event of 33 AD can't be confirmed by scripture or history. And if it could be confirmed,the fact that the timeline is 490 years until the events of Daniel 9:24 are fulfilled , yet your own theory states these are fulfilled 3.5 years too early at the crucifixion is also a concern. (It only took 486.5 years)

Additionally the fact that there is a period of 3.5 years that starts with the abomination and ends with the day of the Lord is a consistent theme throughout the New Testament and Daniel. To say the second half of Daniel isn't that period of 3.5 years when it really does sound like the same period with the same terminology is difficult to swallow.

I don't believe that the addition of the temples destruction by Titus is part of the 70 weeks(490 year) time frame. Look at the structure and specifically where the term "weeks" is mentioned in each sentence:

Daniel 9


9:25 And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince [there shall be] seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then [the time] shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted. (Term "Weeks" given as time frame)

9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him(Term "Weeks" given as time frame)

:and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint [the city] to desolations.(Term "Weeks" NOT given-Not part of 490 years)

9:27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away(Term "Weeks" given as time frame)

: and on the temple [shall be] the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation. .(Term "Weeks" NOT given-Not part of 490 years)

The addition of the Titus destruction in 70 A.D. was an added point that I don't believe was ever meant to be part of the 490 year structure. It is never stated that they were part of the 70 week time frame since the addition of 70 A.D. in the prophecy did not include the term "week".

The judgement in 70 A.D. was based on Israel's rejection of the fulfillment of this prophecy, Jesus! This prophecy was only concerning Israel since that is whom Daniel was praying for. Gentiles were not part of the time frame. It was only when the prophecy time frame, fulfilled in 30 A.D. and time frame ending in 33 A.D. (end of the 490 years) was when Paul was converted and took the Gospel to the Gentiles. The rejection of God's Son determined that a desolation would occur. The actual fulfillment of the desolation did not occur until a generation later. The Angel knew beforehand that most of Israel would reject the Gospel and therefore the added point of 70 A.D. was included.

Please comment on the structure, any thoughts?

John146
Nov 18th 2008, 09:29 PM
I agree with you that we should have fulfilment in 490 years , but history says it was not fulfilled then. I think preterists try too hard to over spiritualise when it suits their doctrine. I personally still see sin in Jerusalem to this day, which contradicts the fulfilment of Daniel 9:24, and I am not satisfied with the spiritual removal of sin explanation, which also only happened in the 486th year and not 490th year. I have never heard of a good explanation of the ending point of the 490 years, when it is , and proof of dating.

The reason for the gap is that the 490 year period is for the Jews only. It is interrupted by a period of significance for all nations, this gentile period is very clear in doctrine. It starts at the crucifixion and ends with the abomination (revealing of the lawless one)Are you saying you believe there will be a time when no one sins in Jerusalem?

John146
Nov 18th 2008, 09:49 PM
Scripture doesn't always point out the reason for gaps. For example in Daniel 12:2 the two resurrections , the righteous and the unrighteous are mentioned as happening together , yet in Rev 20 they are mentioned happening 1000 years apart. In Matthew 24 the second coming and the judgement of the unrighteous (thrown into the lake of fire) are mentioned together yet in Rev 20 they occur 1000 years apart, the unrighteous are only thrown into the lake of fire at the end of the millenium period.The only problem is that there is no gap between the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous, as Jesus made very clear in this passage:

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

There is one future hour or time when all who are in the graves will come forth. Not two future hours or times. One. Not some one time and the rest another time. All in the same hour or time. That is clearly what Jesus taught here. All will be resurrected at the same time, some to life (eternal) and some to damnation (eternal). Just like it says in Daniel 12:2.

So, if you're going to try to support this theory of a gap in the 70-week prophecy you'll have to find another way. Certainly, you can't use Daniel 9 itself to support such a theory since it doesn't even hint at there being any gaps in the prophecy.


Despite this point that I make , there is a specific reason for the gap , the 490 year period, if read in context, is a period of significance for the Jews. It is only broken by a period of significance to the nations. I am sure that I don't need to explain to you the significance of the crucifixion, that it was this moment that brought salvation to the gentiles. We just have to read the doctrines in the epistles that are written to non-Jewish churches to confirm that it was the crucifixion and not any event relating to Cornelius or Peter'svision that brought salvation to the gentiles. Then when the gospel is preached to all nations God will turn his eyes back to the Jews in the final 3.5 year period. The break in the timeline of the period of significance for the Jews, is the period of significance for the gentiles.

Paul writes to the Romans:
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not think you are superior: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come inWhat do you mean when you speak about God turning His eyes back to the Jews? He never turned His eyes from them in the first place. They turned their eyes away from Him. But not all of them. There was a remnant of believers even in Paul's day.

Romans 11
1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

ross3421
Nov 19th 2008, 03:25 AM
[QUOTE=John146;1872613]The only problem is that there is no gap between the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous, as Jesus made very clear in this passage:

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

There is one future hour or time when all who are in the graves will come forth. Not two future hours or times. One. Not some one time and the rest another time. All in the same hour or time. That is clearly what Jesus taught here. All will be resurrected at the same time, some to life (eternal) and some to damnation (eternal). Just like it says in Daniel 12:2.

So, if you're going to try to support this theory of a gap in the 70-week prophecy you'll have to find another way. Certainly, you can't use Daniel 9 itself to support such a theory since it doesn't even hint at there being any gaps in the prophecy.

;)

Both happen of the same DAY as well........

Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.


Hmmmmm.... maybe the 1000 years is not literal :D

DurbanDude
Nov 19th 2008, 06:20 AM
Are you saying you believe there will be a time when no one sins in Jerusalem?

Yes definitely , in the New Jerusalem when only the Godly may enter.

Rev:
21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

DurbanDude
Nov 19th 2008, 07:46 AM
I don't believe that the addition of the temples destruction by Titus is part of the 70 weeks(490 year) time frame. Look at the structure and specifically where the term "weeks" is mentioned in each sentence:

Daniel 9


9:25 And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince [there shall be] seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then [the time] shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted. (Term "Weeks" given as time frame)

9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him(Term "Weeks" given as time frame)

:and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint [the city] to desolations.(Term "Weeks" NOT given-Not part of 490 years)

9:27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away(Term "Weeks" given as time frame)

: and on the temple [shall be] the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation. .(Term "Weeks" NOT given-Not part of 490 years)

The addition of the Titus destruction in 70 A.D. was an added point that I don't believe was ever meant to be part of the 490 year structure. It is never stated that they were part of the 70 week time frame since the addition of 70 A.D. in the prophecy did not include the term "week".

The judgement in 70 A.D. was based on Israel's rejection of the fulfillment of this prophecy, Jesus! This prophecy was only concerning Israel since that is whom Daniel was praying for. Gentiles were not part of the time frame. It was only when the prophecy time frame, fulfilled in 30 A.D. and time frame ending in 33 A.D. (end of the 490 years) was when Paul was converted and took the Gospel to the Gentiles. The rejection of God's Son determined that a desolation would occur. The actual fulfillment of the desolation did not occur until a generation later. The Angel knew beforehand that most of Israel would reject the Gospel and therefore the added point of 70 A.D. was included.

Please comment on the structure, any thoughts?


I didn't understand this point fully in your earlier post, but I see what you are saying now:idea: . So you regard only Daniel 9:27b as outside the 70 sevens. Referring to the OP , this concept would actually fit into the majority translations , the idea that Jesus fulfilled Daniel 9:27a , and Daniel 9:27b being outside the 70 seven period and refers to another character. This is only subtly different to what I propose , that there is a gap at 486.5 years and then the last 3.5 years about the abomination are future (beyond 33 AD).

Our main disagreement would then be when the abomination is , with you saying it is 70 AD , and myself claiming it is still future.

This does not mean that I like the concept that 33 AD was the end of the 490 year period. I already related my objections to Cyberseeker of the 33 AD date, whereas we can date the crucifixion using the gospel of John, and date the beginning of Christ's ministry using history and the bible, how can we date Paul's going to the gentiles , was it 32 AD.... or was it 35 AD,why do you say it was 33AD?

And as Markedward pointed out to me , the gospel still went out to the Jews and Peter's main focus remained on the Jews , after 33AD , so I really don't see this dramatic end to the 70 sevens, the decision by Paul to focus on the Gentiles surely can't be the final end of Daniel's 70 sevens period of significance for the Jews? Surely! I prefer the thought that this ending is the dramatic Day of The Lord and the Second Coming , and Resurrection and setting up of the New Jerusalem when there would be no more sin of any sort in Jerusalem, we would not need prophecy for we will be with God , hearing from God, all of Daniel 9:24 would be so satisfactorily concluded on that day that I prefer the gap theory to the 33AD theory.

Also, of all the fulfilments of Daniel 9:24 that were supposed to take place by 33 AD , which one took place on 33 AD? And if all of them took place by 30 AD , then why did Dan 9:24 say it would take 70 sevens (until 33AD) to fulfil them?

Another point is that you are saying that Daniel 9:27b is outside the 70 sevens. This would mean that only the 7 sevens, the 62 sevens and the first half of the last seven (Daniel 9:27a) warrant any detail. The last half the last seven has no mention , yet elsewhere in the bible a very matching period that starts with the abomination and lasts for 3.5 years is repeatedly mentioned. The most natural thought would be to place this 3.5 year abomination period as being the unmentioned last 3.5 year period of the 70 sevens , especially since the verse is placed next to the other 3.5 year period and finalises the chapter on the 70 sevens. Your version is just not satisfying to me.

DurbanDude
Nov 19th 2008, 08:12 AM
The only problem is that there is no gap between the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous, as Jesus made very clear in this passage:

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

There is one future hour or time when all who are in the graves will come forth. Not two future hours or times. One. Not some one time and the rest another time. All in the same hour or time. That is clearly what Jesus taught here. All will be resurrected at the same time, some to life (eternal) and some to damnation (eternal). Just like it says in Daniel 12:2.

So, if you're going to try to support this theory of a gap in the 70-week prophecy you'll have to find another way. Certainly, you can't use Daniel 9 itself to support such a theory since it doesn't even hint at there being any gaps in the prophecy.

.

Thanks for giving me another verse (John 5:28) to show there are often gaps.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Rev 20:
20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

and then:
20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death

You can pick this logic apart , I don't care , it sounds pretty clear to me , some verses mention one resurrection , and others two.

This does not mean that the bible is inaccurate , the spiritual concept of being spiritually ready for the end is more important than giving specifics regarding the actual order of the end-times.



What do you mean when you speak about God turning His eyes back to the Jews? He never turned His eyes from them in the first place. They turned their eyes away from Him. But not all of them. There was a remnant of believers even in Paul's day.


Like I said elsewhere , it is more a matter of focus, God's focus is presently on the nations , which does include the Jews.

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not think you are superior: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in (Romans)

The verse speaks for itself , a hardening in part (some Jews still open to the gospel)

Cyberseeker
Nov 19th 2008, 03:50 PM
Cyberseeker,

Also remember that even if history doesn't verify that the sacrifices and offerings did cease for a time the focus of this scripture is from God's perspective, not man's. If man continued sacrifices for the next 2000 years it is utterly irrelevant. As far as God is concerned the sacrifices and offerings ceased at the death of His Son who became the final sacrifice. The fulfillment was accomplished at the cross. The Old Covenant sacrificial system became null and void at the cross in light oif Christ's sacrifice. That is what Daniel was looking at, not the act of making sacrifices which did continue after the cross(after a pause?) but as far as atonement was concerned. Earthly Sacrifice and drink offerings were no longer valid in light of Christ.

Would you agree?

Absolutely and positively agree 100% :kiss:



The judgement in 70 A.D. was based on Israel's rejection of the fulfillment of this prophecy, Jesus! ... It was only when the prophecy time frame, fulfilled in 30 A.D. and time frame ending in 33 A.D. (end of the 490 years) was when Paul was converted and took the Gospel to the Gentiles. The rejection of God's Son determined that a desolation would occur. The actual fulfillment of the desolation did not occur until a generation later.


Absolutely and positively agree 100% :kiss:

Heck, did I agree with a preterist twice in the same post? This is getting bad. :o Hit me somebody!

jeffweeder
Nov 19th 2008, 09:28 PM
Hit me somebody!

I tried cyber, but no appropriate smileys----donk

Romulus
Nov 20th 2008, 04:02 PM
I didn't understand this point fully in your earlier post, but I see what you are saying now:idea: . So you regard only Daniel 9:27b as outside the 70 sevens. Referring to the OP , this concept would actually fit into the majority translations , the idea that Jesus fulfilled Daniel 9:27a , and Daniel 9:27b being outside the 70 seven period and refers to another character. This is only subtly different to what I propose , that there is a gap at 486.5 years and then the last 3.5 years about the abomination are future (beyond 33 AD).

Our main disagreement would then be when the abomination is , with you saying it is 70 AD , and myself claiming it is still future.


The abomination in Daniel 9 I believe to be the same abomination that is mentioned in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 which I am sure you do as well. Our disagreement is when this abomination occurs. Let us look at the term abomination. An abomination is something detestable, would you agree? A desolation means a destruction or annihilation, would you agree? Put these simple terms together we have something detestable that causes a destruction. Most believe that the abomination has to do with idol worship but the disagreement is by whom. Most believe that the future antichrist/beast will sacrifice to an idol in a rebuilt temple and this is the abomination. I believe there is a better biblical understanding to this concept. To truly understand what this is we must see the relevation of it in Luke 21 and Matthew 24.

Matthew 24

When you see the abomination that causes desolation, stand where it ought not to, let those who are Judea flee to the mountains.

Luke 21

When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that it's desolation is near, then let those who are Judea flee to the mountains.

Matthew was written to Jews who would have understood the term "abomination that causes desolation" as referring to the 2 occurences of it in the book of Daniel. Daniel 11 most scholars believe to have been fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes when he sacrificed a pig to his god in the temple in Jerusalem causing/fueling the Maccabean war. The other being in Daniel 9 which was not fulfilled yet. The book of Luke was not written to Jews but to gentiles who had absolutely no idea about the term and would not have understood it was referring to Daniel. This is why Luke does not use the term but the meaning of it "Jerusalem surrounded by armies". This event occurred historically in 66 A.D. when Titus and the armies of Rome surrounded Jerusalem. For no reason whatsoever, Titus withdrew giving those that heeded Christ's warning to flee to the mountains of Pella. This was the last chance anyone had to escape the coming destruction. Titus then returned in February 67 A.D. and began the 3.5 year/42 month tribulation/siege against Jerusalem resulting in the destruction of the temple and the city fulfilling both Matthew 23 & 24, Luke 21, and Mark.

Now many don't understand how Rome is an abomination(even though Luke says it is.) First off the antichrist sacrifing to an idol in a rebuilt temple sounds bad but it is no different then any other heathan all through history sacrificing or worshipping to anyone else but God. A rebuilt temple also would not be a holy structure sanctioned by God since Christ was the final sacrifice and it would mean nothing. This concept of a heathan sacrificing to a god instead of God our Father is not anything special. It happens everyday. This idea also makes the abomination by
Antiochus Epiphanes back during the Maccabean war not an abomination either.

Why do I believe this? Because we must see the term abomination as how it relates to God and God alone and to God's annointed, Israel. Was not Israel the focus of the "seventy sevens" as well as Matthew 23, 24 and Luke 21? An abomination has to do with idol worship but not by any heathan, but rather by God's annointed. So back to the question, how was Rome the abomination? Rome was no different then any other heathan nation that rebelled against God and had their own god's and deities. Look at Syria, or Greece etc. What made Rome so detestable to God that caused a destruction? What made Rome stand out that scripture states it was an abomination in God's sight. Here is a little hint, is not God a jealous God? Of course! The answer to this question is in the scripture below. It has everything to do with Israel, the apple of God's eye. The subject of Matthew, Luke, Mark and Daniel. The nation that all other nations were to be saved by. The nation that God's Son came to first and longed to gather to Himself.

John 19


14It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
"Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews.
15But they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!"
"Shall I crucify your king?" Pilate asked.
"We have no king but Caesar," the chief priests answered. 16Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.

The majority of Israel, God's beloved who He sent His one and only Son to save had rejected Him and turned their love and worship to another, Rome. Does not this, make Rome different then all the other heathan nations? It was the nation that Israel was unfaithful to God her husband with. Was not Israel in Covenant with God? Israel had now as Daniel put it "fineshed the transgressions" with the greatest transgression of all. Rome was the abomination, Israel turning to Rome rather then God Himself is what caused the desolations spoken in Daniel 9, Matthew 23, Matthew 24 and Mark 13. This also means that the abomination in Daniel 11 was not the act of Antiochus Epiphanes sacrificing swine on the alter but the Seleucid Empires armies who caused the turning(worship) of Israel to Antiochus Epiphanes and rejecting God Himself. Did this occur, historically yes. Although many Jews met their deaths in the most horrid ways, many did bow before Antiochus Epiphanes for fear of death and were spared. Does not a love for God command that we give up our lives rather then bow before another? The Seleucid armies (Empire) was the abomination in Daniel 11 just as Rome in the New Testament.

Please consider this. :)






This does not mean that I like the concept that 33 AD was the end of the 490 year period. I already related my objections to Cyberseeker of the 33 AD date, whereas we can date the crucifixion using the gospel of John, and date the beginning of Christ's ministry using history and the bible, how can we date Paul's going to the gentiles , was it 32 AD.... or was it 35 AD,why do you say it was 33AD?


I say it was 33 A.D. but their is some dispute as to the date. There are historical evidences anywhere from 30 to 33 A.D. when Paul was converted. It depends when you see the beginning of Christ's ministry for 3.5 years. I believe the 69 sevens end in 26 A.D. at Christ's baptism and the last 70th week extends now from that point to 33 A.D. After this the Gospel was not exclusive to Israel but went to the gentiles.


And as Markedward pointed out to me , the gospel still went out to the Jews and Peter's main focus remained on the Jews , after 33AD , so I really don't see this dramatic end to the 70 sevens, the decision by Paul to focus on the Gentiles surely can't be the final end of Daniel's 70 sevens period of significance for the Jews?

Why not? Did not the angel say vision and prophecy concerning Israel would cease at the end of the 490 years? Is not Israel the only focus of this prophecy? Daniel was only praying for Israel and the answer for Israel was given. After Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant with the New Covenant in His blood was not the way to God the Father given to them? It is utterly irrelevant that most rejected it, the way of salvation was given through Christ. After the 490 years it now was not just for Israel but the gentiles as well.



Surely! I prefer the thought that this ending is the dramatic Day of The Lord and the Second Coming , and Resurrection and setting up of the New Jerusalem when there would be no more sin of any sort in Jerusalem, we would not need prophecy for we will be with God , hearing from God, all of Daniel 9:24 would be so satisfactorily concluded on that day that I prefer the gap theory to the 33AD theory.


There is nothing in Daniel 9 to suggest that the second coming, resurrection of the dead and the New Jerusalem was fulfilled in 33 A.D. This prophecy was for Israel and Israel alone. The added point of the abomination is not part of the prophecy.



Also, of all the fulfilments of Daniel 9:24 that were supposed to take place by 33 AD , which one took place on 33 AD? And if all of them took place by 30 AD , then why did Dan 9:24 say it would take 70 sevens (until 33AD) to fulfil them?


Grammatically there is nothing to suggest that the prophecy had to be fulfilled on the last year, of the last month, of the last day, of the last hour, of the last second of the 490 years. Here is the scripture:

Daniel 9

9:27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple [shall be] the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.

The Septuagint states that only one week (7 years) would establish the covenant with many which means within the last 7 years. Notice how the next part of the scripture about the sacrifice and offering which is to be fulfilled at the same time states in the midst of the week (7 years.) Did this occur? Of course, I believe the 70th week began at Christ's baptism in 26 A.D. and He fulfilled it in 30 A.D. at His crucifixion which was in the midst or the middle of the 7 years.


Another point is that you are saying that Daniel 9:27b is outside the 70 sevens. This would mean that only the 7 sevens, the 62 sevens and the first half of the last seven (Daniel 9:27a) warrant any detail. The last half the last seven has no mention , yet elsewhere in the bible a very matching period that starts with the abomination and lasts for 3.5 years is repeatedly mentioned.

Again, look at the structure:

Red is 26-33 A.D.(70th week) Blue is 70 A.D.


Daniel 9

9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint [the city] to desolations.

9:27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple [shall be] the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.

It is universally agreed that verse 9:26 is Christ at His crucifixion, if the next part is connected to Christ then it would have to have occured at the same time which it didn't. There is no attachment of "weeks" to this fulfillment and is not given a time limit. Plus the fulfillment of this scripture has no bearing on the fulfillment of the prophecy to begin with. It is a judgement but how would this fulfillment bring about salvation to Israel? It wouldn't., it is merely an added point given to verse 26 and 27.

The abomination does not fulfill the stipulations that were given at the beginning to be fulfilled resulting in salvation. The prophecy is not dependant on the abominations fulfillment where every place that "weeks" is put into the prophecy is dependant on for it's fulfillment.

Necessary to fulfill the Prophecy

1) The decree-"has weeks"
2) Unto Christ the Prince-"has weeks"
3) Annointed one destroyed-"has weeks"
4) Establishing the Covenant-"has weeks"

Christ's Covenant in His own blood fulfills the following stipulations and it was cocerning Israel only:

1) for sin to be ended
2) to seal up transgressions
3) to blot out the iniquities
4) to make atonement for iniquities
5) to bring in everlasting righteousness
6) to seal the vision and the prophet
7) to anoint the Most Holy.

Unnecessary to fulfill the Prophecy

1) Titus destroying Jerusalem (verse 26)
2) Abomination(if not Rome) being fulfilled in the future (verse 27)



The most natural thought would be to place this 3.5 year abomination period as being the unmentioned last 3.5 year period of the 70 sevens , especially since the verse is placed next to the other 3.5 year period and finalises the chapter on the 70 sevens.

If we put any gap, whether 1 year or 200+ years it destroys the prophecy.

1) How can we call it the prophecy of the seventy sevens?

2) Can we trust God when His messenger states that the prophecy would fulfill the 7 stipulations on time in 490 years when the last part did not happen.

3) If the 70th week is future then none of the 7 stipulations have been fulfilled, none!

4) When God states later in scripture that He will do something quickly, He does not really mean it.

Do you see what a non fulfillment in the 490 years does to the integrity of scripture? Many like to bring up well "a day with the Lord is like a thousand years" but that is the biggest excuse in the world. First off, it does not say that a day with the Lord IS a thousand years, it is like and the scripture is not how we are to interpret scripture. If so, the seventy sevens really are not the seventy sevens, Revelation was not to be fulfilled soon so sorry persecuted unto death 1st century and when God says he created the earth in 6 days He really did not mean it.

Do we see the reasoning? Scripture must mean what it says, it is a matter of integrity.



Your version is just not satisfying to me.


:(


Just kidding! Please consider. God Bless!

DurbanDude
Nov 20th 2008, 08:01 PM
Why do I believe this? Because we must see the term abomination as how it relates to God and God alone and to God's annointed, Israel. Was not Israel the focus of the "seventy sevens" as well as Matthew 23, 24 and Luke 21? An abomination has to do with idol worship but not by any heathan, but rather by God's annointed. So back to the question, how was Rome the abomination? Rome was no different then any other heathan nation that rebelled against God and had their own god's and deities. Look at Syria, or Greece etc. What made Rome so detestable to God that caused a destruction? What made Rome stand out that scripture states it was an abomination in God's sight. Here is a little hint, is not God a jealous God? Of course! The answer to this question is in the scripture below. It has everything to do with Israel, the apple of God's eye. The subject of Matthew, Luke, Mark and Daniel. The nation that all other nations were to be saved by. The nation that God's Son came to first and longed to gather to Himself.


I understand what you are saying here , but don't agree , just a matter of preference. The word abomination can be loosely applied to anything that is against God's ways, and I would have no argument. It is an abomination that people sin , so someone could describe any sin happening anywhere as the "abomination" and say that God is particularly against that particular sin and prove it with scripture. I prefer to believe that the use of the word particularly relates to worship of another god on God's most holy place, the temple grounds of Jerusalem. Even so , the abomination of Antiochus ,that of the Romans , that of the Dome , and the other abomination to come can all be regarded as abominations. I am not sure if the Romans did profane the temple grounds with their own religious practices, but have heard that they did.

One thing is for sure though , the man declaring himself as God and being accepted by most of the world as God as per 2 Thessalonians 2 has not happened yet ,and this is the ultimate abomination. So you say the biblical abomination has happened , yet I know 2 Thess 2 has not happened yet, and there is nothing you can say to disprove that this event is an abomination , especially because in your heart of hearts you know this will also be an extreme abomination to God (admittedly being presumptious here)

So I think that this is the abomination of Daniel and you think the Romans in 70 AD were. I don't see us agreeing on this point.


I say it was 33 A.D. but their is some dispute as to the date. There are historical evidences anywhere from 30 to 33 A.D. when Paul was converted. It depends when you see the beginning of Christ's ministry for 3.5 years. I believe the 69 sevens end in 26 A.D. at Christ's baptism and the last 70th week extends now from that point to 33 A.D. After this the Gospel was not exclusive to Israel but went to the gentiles.

I agree that Jesus ministry started in 26AD and the crucifixion occurred at the passover in 30 AD, based on this have you got evidence that the gospel onlywent to the Gentiles 3.5 years later during the second half of 33 AD?



There is nothing in Daniel 9 to suggest that the second coming, resurrection of the dead and the New Jerusalem was fulfilled in 33 A.D. This prophecy was for Israel and Israel alone. The added point of the abomination is not part of the prophecy.


I wasn't being specific when I said these things,I was just saying that a prophecy that predicts the coming of the Messiah, then 3.5 years later the crucifixion, then 3.5 years later the conclusion of the Israel period , you would expect a great event to conclude it.



Grammatically there is nothing to suggest that the prophecy had to be fulfilled on the last year, of the last month, of the last day, of the last hour, of the last second of the 490 years. Here is the scripture:

Daniel 9

9:27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple [shall be] the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.


I was referring to another verse here:
9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

And I agree with you that you could say that these fulfilments could happen within the 490 year period, but I do think it loses something grammatically if you interpret it this way. Technically you may have some leeway , but if God says it will take 490 years for various fulfilments to happen but they all happen by 486.5 years, it doesn't ring right.






The Septuagint states that only one week (7 years) would establish the covenant with many which means within the last 7 years. Notice how the next part of the scripture about the sacrifice and offering which is to be fulfilled at the same time states in the midst of the week (7 years.) Did this occur? Of course, I believe the 70th week began at Christ's baptism in 26 A.D. and He fulfilled it in 30 A.D. at His crucifixion which was in the midst or the middle of the 7 years.


It doesn't make any sense to me that you believe the Septuagint to English translation is better. This is an ancient translation from Hebrew to Greek. Then who translated this to English, was it Christians with the help of God? I would rather trust a version translated directly from Hebrew to English , with the Septuagint as a reference, and translated by Christians, as most bibles are.

Regardless , I don't see your version as much different. Here again I don't like the way you have interpreted this. Technically you can get away with saying that the covenant was established within seven years as predicted, but I prefer that the covenant is confirmed (or established)during the entire 7 year period for the prophecy to ring true.




If we put any gap, whether 1 year or 200+ years it destroys the prophecy.

1) How can we call it the prophecy of the seventy sevens?

2) Can we trust God when His messenger states that the prophecy would fulfill the 7 stipulations on time in 490 years when the last part did not happen.

3) If the 70th week is future then none of the 7 stipulations have been fulfilled, none!

4) When God states later in scripture that He will do something quickly, He does not really mean it.

Do you see what a non fulfillment in the 490 years does to the integrity of scripture? Many like to bring up well "a day with the Lord is like a thousand years" but that is the biggest excuse in the world. First off, it does not say that a day with the Lord IS a thousand years, it is like and the scripture is not how we are to interpret scripture. If so, the seventy sevens really are not the seventy sevens, Revelation was not to be fulfilled soon so sorry persecuted unto death 1st century and when God says he created the earth in 6 days He really did not mean it.

Do we see the reasoning? Scripture must mean what it says, it is a matter of integrity.


I prefer the gap theory to the way that you are interpreting Daniel. There are a lot of cases in the bible where initially events are written consecutively, but later it can be seen that there are huge time gaps between the events. This does not indicate that the bible lacks integrity , but instead shows that the bible is written by a God who does not conform to the most logical of us. There are artists and poets and mystery solvers and the deep romantic among us and the bible appeals to all types and God has all these qualities, so the bible should not be looked at as a logical list of events. Daniel 9 was written concerning God's relationship with the Jews, and the period when God's focus is off the Jews and on all nations is the gap period. Fortunately I can define this period more easily than your 33 AD date, for I know that the crucifixion opened salvation for all nations immediately, this is the date when the focus shifts to all nations. Think of all the tongues of Pentecost when other nations could hear the apostles in their own tongues and the salvation of the Ethiopian eunuch even before Paul went specifically to the gentiles. Think of all the scriptures that speak of the crucifixion. This opened the door for all.

John146
Nov 20th 2008, 09:58 PM
Yes definitely , in the New Jerusalem when only the Godly may enter.

Rev:
21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.Right, but weren't you speaking in terms of the prophecy of the making an end of sin? Clearly, that does not happen until the new heavens and new earth are ushered in, which occurs after the thousand years and after the judgment. But if I'm not mistaken you believe that the prophecy is fulfilled at the return of Christ and a thousand years before the judgment, right? If so, the timing of your view does not line up.

I believe the prophecy regarding making an end of sin should be understood based on passages like these:

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Hebrews 10
9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

John146
Nov 20th 2008, 10:04 PM
Thanks for giving me another verse (John 5:28) to show there are often gaps.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Rev 20:
20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

and then:
20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death

You can pick this logic apart , I don't care , it sounds pretty clear to me , some verses mention one resurrection , and others two.

This does not mean that the bible is inaccurate , the spiritual concept of being spiritually ready for the end is more important than giving specifics regarding the actual order of the end-times. It says "the hour is coming", not "the hours are coming". You may not care about logic, but I do. There is other scripture that teaches all people are resurrected and judged at the same time as well. These include Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50, and Matthew 25:31-46. Why does your interpretation of Revelation 20 trump all these other passages?


Like I said elsewhere , it is more a matter of focus, God's focus is presently on the nations , which does include the Jews.

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not think you are superior: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in (Romans)

The verse speaks for itself , a hardening in part (some Jews still open to the gospel)Are you suggesting that there will be a time period in which Gentiles can no longer be saved but only Jews can be saved?

DurbanDude
Nov 21st 2008, 08:34 AM
Right, but weren't you speaking in terms of the prophecy of the making an end of sin? Clearly, that does not happen until the new heavens and new earth are ushered in, which occurs after the thousand years and after the judgment. But if I'm not mistaken you believe that the prophecy is fulfilled at the return of Christ and a thousand years before the judgment, right? If so, the timing of your view does not line up.

I believe the prophecy regarding making an end of sin should be understood based on passages like these:

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

.

:lol: feeling under pressure here because you are making some good points , yes the New Jerusalem is regarded as post-millenial with the new earth and the new heavens, I had the impression that the New Jerusalem (heavenly city) is also here through the millenium and then will also be there on the new earth at the end of the millenium but really not sure of this point, but either way Jesus will be in Jerusalem during the millenium and I believe there will be no sin there.

I've long understood the amill view , but feel that Daniel 9:24 is overspiritualised. There is still sin in Jerusalem and there is still a 3.5 year destiny for Israel before the Second coming , this can be biblically proven. If there is a 3.5 year destiny for Israel before the second coming how can the 490 year period of Israel be complete?

DurbanDude
Nov 21st 2008, 09:25 AM
It says "the hour is coming", not "the hours are coming". You may not care about logic, but I do. There is other scripture that teaches all people are resurrected and judged at the same time as well. These include Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50, and Matthew 25:31-46. Why does your interpretation of Revelation 20 trump all these other passages?

Are you suggesting that there will be a time period in which Gentiles can no longer be saved but only Jews can be saved?

:hmm: I think you misunderstood my comment about logic , what I meant to say is that the logic is so clear in Revelation 20 about there being 2 resurrections that any explanation you come up will not be convincing in light of the clarity of the chapter. I do respect logic. You are welcome to show me your interpretation on Rev 20.

I believe right at the end the gentile nations will have received the mark so yes, there will be a time when they can no longer be saved. The Jews appear to have a little more time to receive or reject the mark , because at the end when all the nations have had their choice to receive or reject this mark, the Jews still come to God en masse during the end-time attack on Jerusalem. Read Joel, the great pre-millenium battle will still involve hard choices for the Jews at the end of the trib, yet it would appear that most have accepted the mark by that stage. Also the 144000. My personal view is that they realise that the false Messiah cannot protect them at that stage and they therefore turn to the true Messiah , the armies of the Assyrian and Gog and its Arab allies are succeeding against the antichrist (the false Messiah) and the Jews in fear repent and turn to God. Anyway that whole discussion is for another thread.

third hero
Nov 25th 2008, 10:37 AM
:lol: feeling under pressure here because you are making some good points , yes the New Jerusalem is regarded as post-millenial with the new earth and the new heavens, I had the impression that the New Jerusalem (heavenly city) is also here through the millenium and then will also be there on the new earth at the end of the millenium but really not sure of this point, but either way Jesus will be in Jerusalem during the millenium and I believe there will be no sin there.

I've long understood the amill view , but feel that Daniel 9:24 is overspiritualised. There is still sin in Jerusalem and there is still a 3.5 year destiny for Israel before the Second coming , this can be biblically proven. If there is a 3.5 year destiny for Israel before the second coming how can the 490 year period of Israel be complete?

Here's your lifeline Durbandude. Read Zechariah 14. There is where all becomes clear when it comes to Jerusalem and the Millennium.

My understanding concerning Jerusalem is that when the 70 weeks are fulfilled, all of the things that are mentioned in Daniel 9:24 are to come to pass. One of them is to bring in everlasting righteousness to her. This has not happened yet, and without a doubt, the only way it can happen is when the Lord returns and sets up His throne there. This is where Matthew 25:31-46 comes into play. I hope this aids you in your quest for understanding the Millennium better.

DurbanDude
Dec 4th 2008, 10:49 PM
Here's your lifeline Durbandude. Read Zechariah 14. There is where all becomes clear when it comes to Jerusalem and the Millennium.

My understanding concerning Jerusalem is that when the 70 weeks are fulfilled, all of the things that are mentioned in Daniel 9:24 are to come to pass. One of them is to bring in everlasting righteousness to her. This has not happened yet, and without a doubt, the only way it can happen is when the Lord returns and sets up His throne there. This is where Matthew 25:31-46 comes into play. I hope this aids you in your quest for understanding the Millennium better.

Thanks , here's another verse I've mentioned a lot recently:

20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

This millenial earth definitely has a special physical city.

John146
Dec 5th 2008, 08:40 PM
Thanks , here's another verse I've mentioned a lot recently:

20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

This millenial earth definitely has a special physical city.Hmmm. And why do you assume it is referring to a physical city? It mentions the camp of the saints. Are the saints not found throughout the world rather than in just one physical city? I believe the camp of the saints is the church and the beloved city is the new Jerusalem. We are even now part of the new heavenly Jerusalem in a spiritual sense.

Gal 4
22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Heb 12
18For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
19And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:
20(For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
21And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake )
22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Eph 2
4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved )
6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

According to Hebrews 12:22, the city of the living God is the heavenly Jerusalem. In Rev. 21, the new Jerusalem is called the holy city. The evidence points to the new heavenly Jerusalem being the beloved city and not the earthly city of Jerusalem.

DurbanDude
Dec 6th 2008, 08:40 AM
Hmmm. And why do you assume it is referring to a physical city? It mentions the camp of the saints. Are the saints not found throughout the world rather than in just one physical city? I believe the camp of the saints is the church and the beloved city is the new Jerusalem. We are even now part of the new heavenly Jerusalem in a spiritual sense.

.

I hope I'm not making any assumptions here , but I thought amills associate the physical Armageddon war of Rev 19 with a physical war in Rev 20 , because most amills seem to say they are the same war, and this all happens before the New Earth. In the light of this , I don't understand what you are currently saying.

You seem to be saying that the blessed city is the New Jerusalem which is attacked in a spiritual sense because we are currently part of the New Jerusalem now. And you believe the "camp of the saints" is the believers everywhere , not a specific place. So do you believe that the armies before the second coming are going to surround (or spiritually attack) the saints everywhere in a spiritual sense and also be physically attacking Jerusalem as per Rev 19 at the same time?

Or are you saying there is no major war in Israel at all during the second coming , it is all a spiritual war? Just trying to understand.

20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
20:8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

John146
Dec 8th 2008, 09:04 PM
I hope I'm not making any assumptions here , but I thought amills associate the physical Armageddon war of Rev 19 with a physical war in Rev 20 , because most amills seem to say they are the same war, and this all happens before the New Earth. In the light of this , I don't understand what you are currently saying.It is spiritual in the sense that Satan goes out to deceive people into uniting against Christ and the church. Rev 16 also gives a depiction of the war being mostly spiritual in nature because it's largely about spiritual deception. It is physical in that Christians are physically persecuted. The destruction of the unbelievers at Christ's return is also physical. Both Rev. 19 and 20 speak of unbelievers being physically destroyed.


You seem to be saying that the blessed city is the New Jerusalem which is attacked in a spiritual sense because we are currently part of the New Jerusalem now.Yes


And you believe the "camp of the saints" is the believers everywhere , not a specific place.Yes


So do you believe that the armies before the second coming are going to surround (or spiritually attack) the saints everywhere in a spiritual sense and also be physically attacking Jerusalem as per Rev 19 at the same time?No. I believe unbelievers will come against Christians in a spiritual sense but also wil physically persecute many throughout the world. I don't believe Jerusalem is in view at all in either Rev. 19 or 20.


Or are you saying there is no major war in Israel at all during the second coming , it is all a spiritual war? Just trying to understand.Yes, that's how I see it. I see it as depicting a global event rather than a regional one. Take the following passage, for example:

2 Thess 1
7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Does this passage suggest that Christ will take vengeance only on people who are in Israel at the time He comes? Not to me. It suggests to me that He is coming to take vengeance on everyone that does not know God and that does not obey the gospel of Christ, regardless of where they may be located at the time. Also, passages like Luke 17:26-30, 1 Thess 5:1-6 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 give me that same impression.

third hero
Dec 9th 2008, 04:35 AM
Hmmm. And why do you assume it is referring to a physical city? It mentions the camp of the saints.

Answering your own question, I see.
Anyway, you are unsatisfied with the answer, and so I'll provide another one.

Who are those people that surround the "beloved city"? Are they not the wicked? Are these wicked folks physical beings?

Of course the answer is yes.

There is your answer. The city in which the saints are encamped is physical, because those who are trying to destroy it are physical.

This is why you have such a hard time seeing Revelation 20 for what it is. The fact that you symbolize the whole chapter makes absolutely no sense. And you have to do this in order to "refute" the 1000 years of peace on this earth that comes with the sealing away of Satan. This is just another reason why I can never accept the Amil POV. Too many figurations and too much of someone else telling me what my lying eyes see.

DurbanDude
Dec 9th 2008, 08:24 AM
It is spiritual in the sense that Satan goes out to deceive people into uniting against Christ and the church. Rev 16 also gives a depiction of the war being mostly spiritual in nature because it's largely about spiritual deception. It is physical in that Christians are physically persecuted. The destruction of the unbelievers at Christ's return is also physical. Both Rev. 19 and 20 speak of unbelievers being physically destroyed..

Thanks for explaining this, do you know if this a universal amill belief or do some amills see the war as physical?

John146
Dec 9th 2008, 10:12 PM
Answering your own question, I see.
Anyway, you are unsatisfied with the answer, and so I'll provide another one.

Who are those people that surround the "beloved city"? Are they not the wicked? Are these wicked folks physical beings?

Of course the answer is yes.

There is your answer. The city in which the saints are encamped is physical, because those who are trying to destroy it are physical. Ah, it's just that simple, right? Of course. Do you believe that all the saints of the world are gathered there at that time?


This is why you have such a hard time seeing Revelation 20 for what it is. The fact that you symbolize the whole chapter makes absolutely no sense. Makes a lot more sense than your interpretation of passages like Matthew 25:31-46, but anyway... ;)


And you have to do this in order to "refute" the 1000 years of peace on this earth that comes with the sealing away of Satan. This is just another reason why I can never accept the Amil POV.Well, I'm sure you will accept it when Christ returns and destroys all the wicked and believers with immortal bodies are the only ones left. ;)


Too many figurations and too much of someone else telling me what my lying eyes see.Uh huh. Tell me, Doug, does the fire that comes down in Rev 20:7-9 destroy all unbelievers? Will all the people of the world be there at the supposed physical camp of the saints? If not, what about everyone else? What happens to them?

John146
Dec 9th 2008, 10:16 PM
Thanks for explaining this, do you know if this a universal amill belief or do some amills see the war as physical?I don't know for certain, but as far as I know amils typically do not see the camp of the saints as referring to earthly Jerusalem but rather to the church. Therefore, Rev 20:7-9 is a global scene rather than a regional one. I think most amils would agree.

MacGyver
Dec 14th 2008, 07:32 PM
This is a portion of an article I wrote on the 70 weeks of Daniel


27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the middle of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.

This one week/seven years, is the period of time beginning with the baptism of Jesus to that of the holy Apostles teaching in Jersualem after the Resurrection. The Lord preached for about 3 and a half years, and strengthened His disciples. But after the Resurrection, Ascension into Heaven, and the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles spent the rest of the three and half years preaching in Jerusalem, working wonders and guiding many thousands, and they imparted the new covenant and caused them to enjoy the grace of baptism.


The abomination of desolations is to be understood as something that took place and continues to take place even until the end of time. It is not to be understood as a one time event in the past or future. Pilate was responsible for such an offense according to Josephus (Ant. 18.55-59) and Eusbeius (Hist. eccel. 2.6.3-4).


And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: The new covenant will be given to the believers in this week, and He will fill them with all power. and in the middle of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease: sacrifice according to the law will come to an end when the true sacrifice of the innocent lamb, who takes away the sin of the world, is offered; when it is finally offered, the other will cease. And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate: that is, that formerally venerable and fearsome place will be made desolate. A sign of the desolation will be the introduction into it of certain images forbidden by the law; Pilate was guilty of this by introducing into the divine temple by night the imperial images in violation of the law (according to Josephus Ant. 18.55-59 an Philo The embassy to Caligula (http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caligula/caligula.html) 299-305). Read Philo and Josephus' quotes HERE (http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate04.html)


In case the Jews should think the divine temple would recover its former splendor and glory, he consequently added..

even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate: until the end of the age the consumation of the desolation will continue, undergoing no change.

third hero
Dec 17th 2008, 08:42 AM
Ah, it's just that simple, right? Of course. Do you believe that all the saints of the world are gathered there at that time?

Makes a lot more sense than your interpretation of passages like Matthew 25:31-46, but anyway... ;)

Like everything else in the Amil POV, this is subject to your interpretation.:rolleyes:


Well, I'm sure you will accept it when Christ returns and destroys all the wicked and believers with immortal bodies are the only ones left. ;)

Well, we shall see when the Lord comes. You know something though, no matter what happens, as long as we remain faithful to the Lord until the end, it doesn't matter what happens to the earth, because we will always be with the Lord!:idea:


Uh huh. Tell me, Doug, does the fire that comes down in Rev 20:7-9 destroy all unbelievers? Will all the people of the world be there at the supposed physical camp of the saints? If not, what about everyone else? What happens to them?

Well, since the very next verse is the beginning of the GWT judgtment, then I owuld have to say that the world is destroyed. It does not say what happens to the rest of the world after the wicked surrounding Jerusalem are destroyed by fire, but we do know that the Lord will begin the Judgment, and all of creation, except for the Tribulation saints, will have to face Lord Jesus.

Now, this is where I differ from many of my contemporaries. I do not believe that the first resurrection encompasses al of the church. I believe that the first resurrection, as written in Revelation 20:4-6, is limited solely to those who gained victory over the Beast and lost their lives for it. The rest of the saints are judged at the GWT judgment, hence the reason for the Lamb's Book of Life to be present there. If only the wicked are presented there, then there would be no need for the Book to be there. Therefore, it has to be there to separate those who are believers from those whose names are not written in it.

But this not-so-subtle difference is for another thread, which I think I will start. It should stir up some decent conversations, not that the recent threads didn't do so already. Who knows. Maybe I could end up having the entire board disagreeing with my sentiments. WHo knows?

Gods Child
Dec 17th 2008, 12:35 PM
Matthew was written to Jews who would have understood the term "abomination that causes desolation" as referring to the 2 occurences of it in the book of Daniel. Daniel 11 most scholars believe to have been fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes when he sacrificed a pig to his god in the temple in Jerusalem causing/fueling the Maccabean war. The other being in Daniel 9 which was not fulfilled yet.

In Matthew 24, Jesus said; 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. 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).
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. ,


There are 3 places in Daniel that speaks of the abomination of desolate (Dan 9:27, Dan 11:31 & Dan 12:11) .
Jesus said “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel”. In the abomination that maketh desolate of Daniel 11, Jesus could not have been speaking of Antiochus Epiphanes who died in 164 BC, which was approximately 164 years before Jesus was even born.
Jesus would not have said “When ye therefore shall see” if he was speaking of someone who died before he was even born. Also Daniel 11 says it is the “time of the end” that this takes place. Antiochus Epiphanes died in 164 BC and his time was not the time of the end.

Jesus said as spoken of by Daniel, In all three accounts of the abomination of desolation that Daniel spoke of, they all have the same thing in common, which is the abomination & the sacrifice is taken away.
Which makes me come to the conclusion that when Jesus said “as spoken of by Daniel”, Jesus was referring to all three chapters in Daniel where this is mentioned and that all three given by Daniel are the same account (time frame), because all of them point to the time of the end as Jesus said in Matthew 24.

In the original manuscript there were no chapters or verses. If we continue from Dan 11 to Dan 12 we can see that this is the time of the end that Jesus was speaking of;


And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. (Dan 11:45-12:3)




Reference Scrptures
Matt 24:15 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)
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Dan 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.

Dan 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.
40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.


Dan 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Gods Child
Dec 17th 2008, 02:03 PM
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come (troops of Titus) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; (ad70) and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he (Messiah) shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week (3½ yrs after baptism) He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. (veil of temple torn) And on the wing of abominations (atonement sacrifices after the cross was an abomination) shall be one who makes desolate, (Titus) even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate." (Gods judgement on Jerusalem from ad70 until the times of the gentiles finish)

(Dan 9: 26,27 NKJV with my notes added)

http://www.5loaves2fishes.net/diagrams/70weeks.gif



I am trying to understand your timeline, but it does not add up to me.

In your timeline, why is there a gap between 30Ad – 70AD.

The scripture tells us that 70 weeks (490 years) are determined.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off = 483 years = Jesus on the Cross. This scripture depicts Jesus crucifixion as the 483 year (Cut off).

If Jesus is cut off at 483 years, where is your 490 years to the fulfillment of the abomination?


In your timeline, what is the 3 ½ years after Jesus Crucifixion?
What happened 3 1/2 years after Jesus crucifixion that caused the abomination to fufill the prophecy?
If 3 1/2 years after his death concludes the 490 years by your timeline, then what was the abomination that happened 3 1/2 years after Jesus death/resurrection?

Romulus
Dec 17th 2008, 02:47 PM
In Matthew 24, Jesus said; 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. 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).
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. ,


There are 3 places in Daniel that speaks of the abomination of desolate (Dan 9:27, Dan 11:31 & Dan 12:11) .
Jesus said “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel”. In the abomination that maketh desolate of Daniel 11, Jesus could not have been speaking of Antiochus Epiphanes who died in 164 BC, which was approximately 164 years before Jesus was even born.
Jesus would not have said “When ye therefore shall see” if he was speaking of someone who died before he was even born. Also Daniel 11 says it is the “time of the end” that this takes place. Antiochus Epiphanes died in 164 BC and his time was not the time of the end.


I agree that Antiochus Epiphanes is not the abomination that was to come as spoken by Christ. I believe it was the armies of Rome as spoken of in Luke 21. Jesus is referring to the abomination as prophecied in Daniel 9. This abomination had not occurred yet.



Jesus said as spoken of by Daniel, In all three accounts of the abomination of desolation that Daniel spoke of, they all have the same thing in common, which is the abomination & the sacrifice is taken away.
Which makes me come to the conclusion that when Jesus said “as spoken of by Daniel”, Jesus was referring to all three chapters in Daniel where this is mentioned and that all three given by Daniel are the same account (time frame), because all of them point to the time of the end as Jesus said in Matthew 24.


The abomination I don't believe to be one event. I believe they were 2 events. Once in the time of the Maccabean wars the other in the time right before the temple's destruction.




In the original manuscript there were no chapters or verses. If we continue from Dan 11 to Dan 12 we can see that this is the time of the end that Jesus was speaking of;


And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.


Jesus also said "this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened". A generation is 40 years. In every other place in scripture that this term is used it always meant the then living generation of people. Why change that meaning here? The entire Olivet Discourse was about the destruction of the temple. The abomination was the armies of Rome who surrounded Jerusalem as spoken by Luke and Matthew in 66 A.D. The Roman armies then left giving the last chance to escape the coming siege. Those that heeded Christ's warning, saw the sign and fled to the mountains of Pella. The armies of Rome returned in February 67 A.D. and began the siege(tribulation) of Jerusalem lasting 42 months/3.5 years ending in the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem on August 31, 70 A.D.

This occurred a generation after Jesus spoke the prophecy. How was Rome different then eveyother heathan nation becoming an abomination. Rome was the one who Israel turned to instead of their Messiah. Remember Pilate?

Here is your King(Pilate to Israel) We have no King but Caesar(Israel)

The abomination has to do with worship of anyone but God Himself. This was the case here and it culiminated in the ultimate unfaithfulness as Israel(majority not the Remnant) rejected Christ. This was also the case in the time of the Maccebean war as spoken in Daniel 11. The seleucid armies caused many of Israel to turn to them instead of God. Those that didn't bow to Antiochus were tortured and killed in the most horrible ways. The seleucid Empire was the abomination just as Rome was. It has everything to do with Idol worship but not by any heathan nation but by Israel herself. She was the apple of God's eye, she was to be the nation all others would be saved by, she was who Christ came to first. The betrayal before Pilate became the last straw causing the city to be destroyed a generation later. Notice how Matthew 23 was everything about Israel's unfaithfulness with Jesus proclaiming:

Your house is left to you, desolate.

As you stated, there were no chapters or verses but also no headings. The natural flow of scripture in Matthew is the proclamation of Israel's unfaithfulness and then prophecy of it's destruction. Jesus only proclaimed one event in Matthew 24, that the temple would be destroyed. The disciples question then was

1) when will this happen?
2) What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?

All regarding the temple, not the end of the world. Why would they bring up the end of the world in the same conversation when Jesus only stated that the temple would be destroyed?

:)