Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 243

Thread: The Preterist Gap

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,605

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by David Taylor View Post
    At least Randy is closer in his 70 weeks (partial not full) approach of 3.5 years short (cut off in the midst of the final week 70), than Premillennialism is by bloating the 70 weeks into an unnatural and unliteral ever growing 2,490+ish year 70 weeks.
    I don't see why 490 Jewish years should include Gentile years.

    Dan 9 is God's response to Daniel's concern for specifically Israel, in v25 God makes a promise to send the anointed to Israel, Jesus confirms this promise to Israel for 3.5 years only, then the crucifixion opened salvation to all, it was the end of the Jewish period.

    Yet during the final GT, Israel is protected (Rev 12) and Israel has a spiritual revival (Roman's 11:25) and so God will literally be focussed on Jewish salvation during the final 3.5 years when the two witnesses are prophesying from Jerusalem. A definite final 3.5 years focussed specifically on the Jews, confirming the anointed one is their savior, just like the 3.5 years of Jesus' ministry.

    Sure there's a gap, a gentile gap in a 490 year Jewish timeline. The alternative that some undated and hardly mentioned event is the great final culmination of the 490 year period and occurred in exactly autumn 34 AD, is not convincing compared to a repeatedly mentioned 3.5 year period culminating in God's presence on Mount Zion at the second coming and a true end to sin in Jerusalem.

    If you could properly date an event to autumn 34 AD, and properly prove its the great end of the age, that would be cool, but Stephen's stoning, Paul's conversion, Peter's vision etc just don't cut it as the culmination of the age and fulfillment of v24

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,605

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    There is one glaring reason that this theory exists. Note it when you read the various answers. They state, CONTRARY to scripture, that the Lord's death occurred in the 70th seven. But what does the text say? Daniel 9:24-26

    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.
    25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
    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."


    The death of our Lord Jesus has nothing to do with the 70th seven. Our Lord was slain "AFTER" 69 sevens, but NOT in the 70th seven. And AFTER Messiah is cut off verse 26 the "END" is twice mentioned. (1) As the "END THEREOF". According to grammar the "thereof" must describe "the people" who destroy the city and sanctuary - the Romans. (2) As the "END OF THE WAR". Which war? It does not matter because it is a war connected with the 69th seven. The 70th seven is only introduced in the next verse, verse 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."

    The correct understanding is again by normal grammatical rules. It all revolves around who the "he" is in this verse. "HE" can only be one of TWO PERSONS:
    1. "HE" could be "Messiah"
    2. "HE" could be the Prince of the Romans who will come

    The rules of grammar say that "HE" must be the last mentioned subject - the FUTURE Roman Prince. Added to this, what does the evidence point to? This "HE" will "confirm" or "strengthen" a Covenant that contains the daily oblation. This could not be our Lord Jesus because;
    • He is cut off
    • when our Lord Jesus comes He does not "confirm" or "strengthen" THE (existing) Covenant that contains the daily oblation. HE MAKES A NEW COVENANT WITH ISRAEL CONTAINING THESE LAWS (Jer.31:31-33)
    • The NEW COVENANT is not for ONE WEEK. It is EVERLASTING (Jer.32:40; Ezek.37:26)
    • Our Lord Jesus does not stop that part of the Covenant that contains the daily oblation "till heaven and earth pass" (Matt.5:17-18)
    • Our Lord Jesus, far from stopping the oblation, will feat the PASSOVER ANNUALLY when He returns (Ex.12:14, 17 , 24; Lk.22:15-16)
    • He does not "make abomination"
    • He returns AFTER the "abomination of desolation" is seen in Judah
    • He advises Judaeans to flee when it occurs but He gathers Israel when He returns

    The evidence is not only overwhelming, but exclusive. The "GAP" between the 69th seven and the 70th seven is from the death of Jesus until a future Roman Prince allows Israel to institute their daily oblation. And THAT .... can only happen when a Temple is standing in Jerusalem. The oblation is intimately connected with the Temple.
    After the 69th week occurs sometime after week 69. It could be week 70. Or week 71. Or week 72 etc etc etc

    I don't see why week 70 has to be excluded, it is literally and definitely after week 69. So if the crucifixion is the event in the middle of the last week, Jesus is cut off after the 69th week. It works.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,605

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Below are the time lines of each set of weeks

    605 B.C. The start of the 70 weeks Daniel and the Jews are taken into captivity. (time goes backwards from the time of Daniel vision)

    587 B.C. Jerusalem is destroyed by Babylon the start of the 7 weeks (runs parallel to some of the 62 weeks)

    170/1 B.C. Onias 3rd is murdered (cut off and has nothing) the second anointed one the last of the Zadokite priesthood which was the start of the 70th week.

    538 B.C. King Cyrus issues a decree to go and rebuild Jerusalem and Joshua (the first anointed one who was to come) goes back to rebuild Jerusalem. This is the end of the 7 weeks which was 49 years after 587 B.C. when Jerusalem was destroyed.


    167 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanies 4th desecrates the temple ˝ way through the 70th week. The abomination that caused desolation.

    164/3 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanies 4th dies and the temple sacrifice is reestablished the end of the 70th week. (the end is poured out on him)

    War continued during and until the end of the 70th week

    The purposes of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9:24 were fulfilled by the Jews who remained loyal to God and resisted apostasy.

    605 B.C.-171 B.C. 62 weeks or 434 years

    587 B.C.-538 B.C. 7 weeks or 49 years

    170/1 B.C.-164/3 B.C. 70th week or 7 years
    I enjoy how you and FHG think out the box on this, breaking the 490 years up into 3 separate and sometimes overlapping periods. I personally don't think the 490 year period is meant to be understood that way. There are 490 Jewish years until completion, overlaps seem out of place.

  4. #34

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    The correct understanding is again by normal grammatical rules. It all revolves around who the "he" is in this verse. "HE" can only be one of TWO PERSONS:
    1. "HE" could be "Messiah"
    2. "HE" could be the Prince of the Romans who will come

    The rules of grammar say that "HE" must be the last mentioned subject - the FUTURE Roman Prince.
    The problem you have here is that "of the prince that shall come" is a prepositional phrase acting as an adjective. "The People" is your subject that does the destroying, while "of the prince that shall come" just describes "the people"

    However, "He" in verse 27 can't refer back to "People" because the antecedent can't be in the plural form for the pronoun he. So, in this instance, we must continue our search for the proper antecedent, which is indeed Messiah.

    In fact the only two possibilities are (A) People (B) Messiah

    Here is an example: Several of the players are practicing their batting

    At a quick glance "players" might seem to be the antecedent for the pronoun "their". However, "players" is part of the prepositional phrase and the proper antecedent is "Several"

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,605

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimatoree66 View Post
    The problem you have here is that "of the prince that shall come" is a prepositional phrase acting as an adjective. "The People" is your subject that does the destroying, while "of the prince that shall come" just describes "the people"

    However, "He" in verse 27 can't refer back to "People" because the antecedent can't be in the plural form for the pronoun he. So, in this instance, we must continue our search for the proper antecedent, which is indeed Messiah.

    In fact the only two possibilities are (A) People (B) Messiah

    Here is an example: Several of the players are practicing their batting

    At a quick glance "players" might seem to be the antecedent for the pronoun "their". However, "players" is part of the prepositional phrase and the proper antecedent is "Several"
    There are such huge differences between Hebrew and English, to get so technical on the rules of the English language may be completely irrelevant.

    The players of the coach practiced a lot. He entered an agreement with management.

    Most would see the "he" as the coach not the players.

    I read Josephus account of that war, and the Jewish Civil War within Jerusalem was a major contributor towards the weakening of Jerusalem, from a moral, economic and military perspective.

    Buildings were destroyed, priests killed, stores of grain destroyed, the temple corrupted, even before the Roman's entered Jerusalem and destroyed it rapidly "like a flood "

    I see the ruler who will come in v25 (Jesus) as the same ruler who will come in v26, and it was Jewish leaders who ruined (shachath) Jerusalem before it was destroyed like a flood. The "he" is Jesus, who confirmed the promise of v25 of a coming Messiah.

  6. #36

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    There are such huge differences between Hebrew and English, to get so technical on the rules of the English language may be completely irrelevant.

    The players of the coach practiced a lot. He entered an agreement with management.

    Most would see the "he" as the coach not the players.

    I read Josephus account of that war, and the Jewish Civil War within Jerusalem was a major contributor towards the weakening of Jerusalem, from a moral, economic and military perspective.

    Buildings were destroyed, priests killed, stores of grain destroyed, the temple corrupted, even before the Roman's entered Jerusalem and destroyed it rapidly "like a flood "

    I see the ruler who will come in v25 (Jesus) as the same ruler who will come in v26, and it was Jewish leaders who ruined (shachath) Jerusalem before it was destroyed like a flood. The "he" is Jesus, who confirmed the promise of v25 of a coming Messiah.
    Good points. I was taught that if your pronoun antecedent was in a prepositional phrase, there's probably better way to write the sentence. I honestly thought it was a rule, but obviously it is not a rule.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    6,161

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    After the 69th week occurs sometime after week 69. It could be week 70. Or week 71. Or week 72 etc etc etc

    I don't see why week 70 has to be excluded, it is literally and definitely after week 69. So if the crucifixion is the event in the middle of the last week, Jesus is cut off after the 69th week. It works.
    How can the crucifixion be in the middle of the 70th when it clearly says that it is AFTER the 69th? The Hebrew word for "after" in Daniel 9:26 means "at the hind part". That is, our Lord's death was at the hind part of the 69th week. What happens in the middle of the 70th week is that the Beast puts a stop to the daily oblations so that all worship can be directed at him.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    6,161

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimatoree66 View Post
    The problem you have here is that "of the prince that shall come" is a prepositional phrase acting as an adjective. "The People" is your subject that does the destroying, while "of the prince that shall come" just describes "the people"

    However, "He" in verse 27 can't refer back to "People" because the antecedent can't be in the plural form for the pronoun he. So, in this instance, we must continue our search for the proper antecedent, which is indeed Messiah.

    In fact the only two possibilities are (A) People (B) Messiah

    Here is an example: Several of the players are practicing their batting

    At a quick glance "players" might seem to be the antecedent for the pronoun "their". However, "players" is part of the prepositional phrase and the proper antecedent is "Several"
    I understand your argument, but in turn, you have a problem too. If it be "people" then why is it a "HE" (singular). The context of the last two verses of Daniel 9 pits TWO MALE ANTAGONISTS against each other - Messiah and Prince of the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary, thus making the Prince the main subject. The "people" only show his nationality. Throughout the New Testament this Prince is a man, a king and singular, and it is he (singular) that accomplishes those things in my list - things that our Lord would not do. Added to this, if your argument is followed then the "People" who lived in 70 AD would be the accomplishers of things that happen three and a half years before Christ returns - an absurdity.

    I am aware that the grammar is crucial to the understanding of these verses, but both immediate context and the evidence of the rest of the Bible must also have their say.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,605

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    How can the crucifixion be in the middle of the 70th when it clearly says that it is AFTER the 69th? The Hebrew word for "after" in Daniel 9:26 means "at the hind part". That is, our Lord's death was at the hind part of the 69th week. What happens in the middle of the 70th week is that the Beast puts a stop to the daily oblations so that all worship can be directed at him.
    The way I have understood it, is that 70 is after 69. Surely?

    Placing the beast into the first half of v27 is one way of looking at it, but when I look at most translations they have two characters, not one, in v27

    He confirms the covenant, ONE (someone else) sets up the abomination. The most popular bibles have one character (KJV, NIV), but most bibles mention two guys, not one guy.

  10. #40

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimatoree66 View Post
    The problem you have here is that "of the prince that shall come" is a prepositional phrase acting as an adjective. "The People" is your subject that does the destroying, while "of the prince that shall come" just describes "the people"

    However, "He" in verse 27 can't refer back to "People" because the antecedent can't be in the plural form for the pronoun he. So, in this instance, we must continue our search for the proper antecedent, which is indeed Messiah.

    In fact the only two possibilities are (A) People (B) Messiah

    Here is an example: Several of the players are practicing their batting

    At a quick glance "players" might seem to be the antecedent for the pronoun "their". However, "players" is part of the prepositional phrase and the proper antecedent is "Several"
    26 And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his, the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end [is] with a flood, and till the end [is] war, determined [are] desolations.
    27 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.' (YLT)

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    6,161

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    The way I have understood it, is that 70 is after 69. Surely?

    Placing the beast into the first half of v27 is one way of looking at it, but when I look at most translations they have two characters, not one, in v27

    He confirms the covenant, ONE (someone else) sets up the abomination. The most popular bibles have one character (KJV, NIV), but most bibles mention two guys, not one guy.
    The short answer is;
    1. How do we fit two men into the grammar?
    2. How could our Lord "confirm" (strengthen - lit. Heb.) the Covenant if He is dead?

    And in my posting #13 I wrote ...

    The correct understanding is again by normal grammatical rules. It all revolves around who the "he" is in this verse. "HE" can only be one of TWO PERSONS:
    1. "HE" could be "Messiah"
    2. "HE" could be the Prince of the Romans who will come

    The rules of grammar say that "HE" must be the last mentioned subject - the FUTURE Roman Prince. Added to this, what does the evidence point to? This "HE" will "confirm" or "strengthen" a Covenant that contains the daily oblation. This could not be our Lord Jesus because;
    • He is cut off
    • when our Lord Jesus comes He does not "confirm" or "strengthen" THE (existing) Covenant that contains the daily oblation. HE MAKES A NEW COVENANT WITH ISRAEL CONTAINING THESE LAWS (Jer.31:31-33)
    • The NEW COVENANT is not for ONE WEEK. It is EVERLASTING (Jer.32:40; Ezek.37:26)
    • Our Lord Jesus does not stop that part of the Covenant that contains the daily oblation "till heaven and earth pass" (Matt.5:17-18)
    • Our Lord Jesus, far from stopping the oblation, will feat the PASSOVER ANNUALLY when He returns (Ex.12:14, 17 , 24; Lk.22:15-16)
    • He does not "make abomination"
    • He returns AFTER the "abomination of desolation" is seen in Judah
    • He advises Judaeans to flee when it occurs but He gathers Israel when He returns

    The evidence is not only overwhelming, but exclusive. The "GAP" between the 69th seven and the 70th seven is from the death of Jesus until a future Roman Prince allows Israel to institute their daily oblation. And THAT .... can only happen when a Temple is standing in Jerusalem. The oblation is intimately connected with the Temple.
    You can at once see that the actions of the "HE" could not, and would not, be accomplished by our Lord. The whole of verse 27 concerns the "prince" of the people who destroyed Jerusalem. Our Lord is "cut off" at the hind part of the 69th week. He is in heaven for the dawn of the 70th week because He returns from the clouds after the 70th Week in Matthew 24. But the most powerful proof is in the meaning of "confirming the Covenant". How can we identify which Covenant he strengthens or confirms? Israel have a number of Covenants. Which one is strengthened? It must the Covenant of Law of Sinai because it contains the daily oblations. And why is the Covenant of Law weak, or in need of confirming? Because without the Temple the Law can not only be fulfilled by it is continuously broken. The Temple is quasi the CENTER of the Law. It is is the CENTER of the Feast Days, It is is the CENTER of the tithing, it is the CENTER of the ordinances of service and worship and it is the place where God dwells among Israel. The Beast needs the Temple (2nd Thess.2:4), and so the ONE SINGLE THING that changes the face of Israel and the Law, is the Temple.

    Conversely, does our Lord Jesus strengthen the Covenant that contains the oblations? And does He do it for only one week - or seven years? NO! When He returns He will DO AWAY WITH THE COVENANT OF SINAI! He will make a NEW COVENANT of Law with Israel. And this NEW COVENANT is FOREVER!

    There is not a single indication in verse 27 that our Lord is in view. ALL is accomplished by the Prince of the Romans people who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD.

    In closing, there are many students of eschatology who deny that a Temple will be in place during the Great Tribulation. So my answer is, besides 2nd Thessalonians 2:4, that Revelation Chapter 11 clearly shows a Temple (v.1-2), clearly shows where it is - Jerusalem, clearly shows when - the last 1260 days, has two God-ordained COUNTER WITNESSES telling the population of Jerusalem that what is going on in the Temple is UNLAWFUL, and is standing at the time of the Beast.

    Since none of these things have happened, Daniel's 70th SEVEN is still future. The Gap then is most likely 2,000 years as Hosea 6.2 predicts.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    6,161

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by pdun459 View Post
    Walls, I pretty much agree. It's hard to deny that the scripture says Messiah will be cut off after 69 weeks.

    However, I don't believe the normal rules of grammar apply necessarily. "He" could simply be a prophetic reference to the man of sin who will appear in the last days. He may not even be Roman.
    Language is a gift of God. It transmits ideas. If we discard the rules that govern it we cannot coherently transmit these ideas. Therefore, I personally think grammar is everything. Added to this, all the prophecies that have been fulfilled up to now, have been fulfilled just as the grammar said. I think we can be confident that the remaining ones will happen exactly as the grammar indicates.

  13. #43

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Below are the time lines of each set of weeks

    605 B.C. The start of the 70 weeks Daniel and the Jews are taken into captivity. (time goes backwards from the time of Daniel vision)

    587 B.C. Jerusalem is destroyed by Babylon the start of the 7 weeks (runs parallel to some of the 62 weeks)

    170/1 B.C. Onias 3rd is murdered (cut off and has nothing) the second anointed one the last of the Zadokite priesthood which was the start of the 70th week.

    538 B.C. King Cyrus issues a decree to go and rebuild Jerusalem and Joshua (the first anointed one who was to come) goes back to rebuild Jerusalem. This is the end of the 7 weeks which was 49 years after 587 B.C. when Jerusalem was destroyed.


    167 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanies 4th desecrates the temple ˝ way through the 70th week. The abomination that caused desolation.

    164/3 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanies 4th dies and the temple sacrifice is reestablished the end of the 70th week. (the end is poured out on him)

    War continued during and until the end of the 70th week

    The purposes of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9:24 were fulfilled by the Jews who remained loyal to God and resisted apostasy.

    605 B.C.-171 B.C. 62 weeks or 434 years

    587 B.C.-538 B.C. 7 weeks or 49 years

    170/1 B.C.-164/3 B.C. 70th week or 7 years

    Regarding the 70th week or 7 years, based on other scriptures in the bible, I do not see how this period of time can be fulfilled in 70AD.

    Below are references that indicate this is a time period at a minimal of 3-1/2 years prior to the end of time. (I posted the same response on another thread.)

    Point #1
    By 70AD, the gospel of the kingdom had not been preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations.
    Matthew 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.


    Point #2
    Based on other passages by Jesus, as well as other apostles, Jesus was referring to a period of time near the end of time and refers to the passage in Daniel as a time in the future.
    Matthew 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


    Point #3
    Clearly Jesus was referring to the time of his 2nd coming and not 70AD. He also places the sign of his coming immediately after the tribulation of those days.
    Matthew 24:
    27) For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
    28) For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
    29) Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
    30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
    31) And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


    Point #4
    Then Jesus concludes by say that this is (1) generation in which all will be fulfilled. And goes on to say that no man knows the day and the hour. Only my Father knows. Therefore, the time could not have been 70AD.
    Matthew 24:
    34) Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
    36) But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.


    Point #5
    Apostle Paul refers to the same event as Jesus, regarding the abomination of desolation and gives reference to the man of sin (son of perdition). And later states that the Lord will consume with the brightness of his coming.
    2 Thessalonians 2:
    3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
    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:

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,638

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    I don't see why 490 Jewish years should include Gentile years.

    Dan 9 is God's response to Daniel's concern for specifically Israel, in v25 God makes a promise to send the anointed to Israel, Jesus confirms this promise to Israel for 3.5 years only, then the crucifixion opened salvation to all, it was the end of the Jewish period.

    Yet during the final GT, Israel is protected (Rev 12) and Israel has a spiritual revival (Roman's 11:25) and so God will literally be focussed on Jewish salvation during the final 3.5 years when the two witnesses are prophesying from Jerusalem. A definite final 3.5 years focussed specifically on the Jews, confirming the anointed one is their savior, just like the 3.5 years of Jesus' ministry.

    Sure there's a gap, a gentile gap in a 490 year Jewish timeline. The alternative that some undated and hardly mentioned event is the great final culmination of the 490 year period and occurred in exactly autumn 34 AD, is not convincing compared to a repeatedly mentioned 3.5 year period culminating in God's presence on Mount Zion at the second coming and a true end to sin in Jerusalem.

    If you could properly date an event to autumn 34 AD, and properly prove its the great end of the age, that would be cool, but Stephen's stoning, Paul's conversion, Peter's vision etc just don't cut it as the culmination of the age and fulfillment of v24
    Regardless of how you do or don’t take the 3.5 years related to the 70 weeks, the bigger issue to me is the inconsistency of how Premillennielism doesn’t apply the attributes of 9:24 within the 70 ‘literal’ weeks either.

    Even if the Premill Israel 70th week gap theory is taken at face value, at the end of the 70th week, at Armageddon and Christ’s return, Premill still has another 1000 years on top of Israel’s already completed 70 weeks, that the items of 9:24 (that belong to the 70th week), are still not fulfilled.

    Premill ends up pushing the final fulfillment of the items of 9:24 out to the GWT judgment, when sin is finally ended for Israel.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    18,194

    Re: The Preterist Gap

    Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.



    Every single thing mentioned in this verse involves the 70th week. There is nothing in this verse that happens outside of the 70th week.

    If one concludes there are no gaps in the 70 weeks, and that if one concludes Christ is meant in verse 27, and that if...and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease...is meaning His death on the cross, the remainder of that verse has to be fulfilled within 3.5 years of the cross in that case. Otherwise that places a gap in the 70th week itself.

    A gap between the 69th and 70th week is logical. A gap in the middle of the 70th week isn't logical. The text makes it clear that the same one confirming the covenant with many for one week, is the same one this applies to... for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. Why anyone would think Christ did that, that is beyond me?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Please Help Preterist fallacies? or not?
    By Aijalon in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: Dec 31st 2015, 11:48 PM
  2. New here Pentecostal, Unitarian, Preterist
    By AdamPastor in forum Introductions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Jul 11th 2013, 12:36 AM
  3. Why I Am Not A Preterist
    By Daniel Gracely in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: Jun 19th 2012, 12:25 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •