Unreported News, Commentary, Resources and Discussion of Bible Prophecy
|
Mark F wrote:Keith,
Question for you, when do you put the start of the sixty-two weeks?
keithareilly wrote:So, as I see it...
Christ was crucified during the 70th week. Then there is gap of time included in the vision, the gap ends when the vision picks back up with the prince and his people coming and stopping the sacrifices in the middle of a one week period. From a historical perspective, we know there is a gap of time between the 70th week when Christ was cut-off and First Jewish Roman War.
I also see this view as aligning with the Parable of the Landowner.
Matthew 21:33-44
The vision includes the 70 weeks, a gap, and a one week period in the middle of which destruction of the city and the sanctuary, sacrifices cease, and also war continuing with multiple desolations.
This aligns with the Parable of the Land Owner sending his son, his son being killed, and the Landowner bringing them to a wretched end.
History shows us this has indeed happened as described.
Christ was killed after the 69th week, during the 70th week, a period of time (gap) elapses, then the First Jewish Roman war results in the one week prophesy of Dan 9:27, the destroying the city and sanctuary. Then we have the second Roman Jewish war with more desolations occurring, and the Jewish people finally being removed from the Israel resulting in the diaspora.
The Daniel 9:24-27 vision aligns with both, the parable of landowner, and historical records.
This is why I see this prophesy as historical, not future.
One of the things in this prophecy that is very clear, is that after Christ is cut-off, war comes to the holy people and the holy city, resulting in the sanctuary and city are destroyed.
I do not see how the destruction of the holy people and the holy city aligns with the interpretation that the holy people and the holy city quit sinning and become a righteous people and city during the 70 weeks prophecy. To me, it is very clear the prophecy says they do not quit sinning and therefore are destroyed. And God let them know he did the destruction by having Titus destroy the temple on the 9th of Av, the same day God had Nebuchadnezzar destroy the first temple. So, I think this is pretty good evidence the destruction of the holy people and the Holy City was God's plan and was prophesied in Daniel 9:24-27.
Keith
Dan 9:1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;
Dan 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy-one years in the desolations of Jerusalem.
Dan 9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
Dan 9:22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
Dan 9:23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
Dan 9:24 Seventy-one 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.
keithareilly wrote:The vision includes the 70 weeks, a gap, and a one week period in the middle of which destruction of the city and the sanctuary, sacrifices cease, and also war continuing with multiple desolations.
Dan 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.
keithareilly wrote:Interestingly, we agree about that gap being a time frame between the the cutting off of Christ and the start of the one week of Daniel 9:27. Nevertheless, it is our definition of the 70th week and the one week of Daniel 9:27 that leads to different perceptions about the what the gap represents.
keithareilly wrote:The argument is:
1) The accomplishment of the goals of Daniel verse 9:24 are a part of a 70 week prophecy; therefore, accomplishing them must occur during the 70 weeks.
2) Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection are what accomplished some of the goals in Daniel verse 9:24; therefore, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection must have occurred during a portion of the 70 weeks.
3) We know from scripture he was cut off after the first 69 weeks; therefore, the crucifixion and resurrection did not take place during the first 69 weeks. The only week left is the 70th week.
4) If Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection occurred outside the prophesy, that is outside the 70 weeks, that would make the prophesy false, inaccurate, wrong.
With regards to Titus, the one week mentioned on Daniel 9:27 is not part of the 70 weeks prophesy; it is a one week prophecy that describes the consequences of Christ's crucifixion by the Jews.
They are two different prophecies.
1) 70 weeks about what is accomplished by the Jews and Jerusalem when they kill Christ, verse 24,
2) 1 week about about the consequences of killing Christ, verse 27.
Ready1 wrote:Seventy weeks is the matter and the vision which Gabriel shares. He expands Daniels knowledge of that by telling him that it is composed of seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week, all a part of the matter and vision, and all found in Dan 9:24-27. It is NOT seventy weeks plus some other week. It is seventy weeks as shown by Gabriel in a single vision or revelation, and recorded in four little verses. No separation, not two prophecies, not 71 weeks, not 70 weeks and one week.
Mr Baldy wrote:The events in Daniel 9:24 - ALL point to Christ. So when He said "It is FINSHED" I believe that is exactly what He meant. Finished means Finished.Ready1 wrote:I have seen this statement multiple times, in fact over and over in one form or another; but I would like for someone to share what they mean by this statement on a point-by-point basis. (i.e. There are six or seven things (depending on how you divide them) which will be completed by the ending of the 70 weeks.) If this statement is indeed true, and I am not questioning whether you believe it to be true, each point ought to be supportable by other scriptures which point back to this passage. They ought to be contextually accurate and be able to advance the argument that "the entire 70 weeks were completed - by the ministry: Death/Burial & Resurrection of Jesus."
Ready1 wrote:When I see the statement "It is finished" used as a proof text for Dan 9:24 I end up thinking things like:
1) But Jesus came to provide redemption for the whole world.
2) And His blood was efficient to save everyone.
3) His sacrifice was available for the justification of all.
4) The propitiation that scripture speaks of was ordained by God to appease his wrath upon all sin.
5) Any man can receive these fabulous blessings through faith.
And then I also think things like:
1) His incarnation, life, death, burial, and resurrection were about so much more than the Jews.
2) They were about the whole world.
3) God's plan, while offered first to the Jew, is so much bigger than the Jew.
4) If Jesus coming to the earth was about fulfilling Dan 9:24 then why would he need to come back another time to accomplish Jewish things that he did not finish?
5) It wasn't about the Jews and Jerusalem.
So my conclusion is that when Jesus said "It is finished" he was speaking of the work of redemption upon the cross in which he was offered as a sacrifice for the sin of the whole world, past, present, future. That work was complete, not all prophecy from all time periods.
keithareilly wrote:Hi Ready1,
The more we converse, the more I realize how much we see things so differently.
When I was younger, I saw the one week of Daniel 9:27 as the 70th week.
Later I had an alternative view that made more sense to me.
The key was how I saw this passage.
Daniel 9:25-26a
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.And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:
1) Initially, I saw this passage as discussing the first 69 weeks because it mentions the 69 weeks explicitly.
2) Later, I saw this passage discussing all 70 weeks.
...a) This passage mentions explicitly the first 69 weeks. I think we agree here.
...b) The passage mentions implicitly the 70th week, the week Christ is cut-off;
...c) Then I saw this passage as actually talking about all 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24.
After I saw this, then I had to ask myself: Which is the 70th week, the implicitly mentioned week, in which Christ was crucified, or the explicitly mentioned week of Daniel 9:27? Before I asked myself that question, I asked myself if something mentioned implicitly is of equal value to something mentioned explicitly. I thought "Yes" saying something implicitly is still saying something. It is just harder to hear. Therefore, just because Daniel 9:27 explicitly mentions one week, that explicit one week statement does not take precedent over an implicit one week statement. Consequently, I stopped assuming the one week of Daniel 9:27 was the 70th week. I also noticed there exists nothing in the passages that say the Daniel 9:27 week is the 70th week. It was then I realized I just assumed it was; because, it was mentioned explicitly.
Keith
keithareilly wrote:...b) The passage mentions implicitly the 70th week, the week Christ is cut-off;
keithareilly wrote:After I saw this, then I had to ask myself: Which is the 70th week, the implicitly mentioned week, in which Christ was crucified, or the explicitly mentioned week of Daniel 9:27? Before I asked myself that question, I asked myself if something mentioned implicitly is of equal value to something mentioned explicitly. I thought "Yes" saying something implicitly is still saying something. It is just harder to hear. Therefore, just because Daniel 9:27 explicitly mentions one week, that explicit one week statement does not take precedent over an implicit one week statement. Consequently, I stopped assuming the one week of Daniel 9:27 was the 70th week. I also noticed there exists nothing in the passages that say the Daniel 9:27 week is the 70th week. It was then I realized I just assumed it was; because, it was mentioned explicitly.
This is an assumption based upon viewpoint. Even your premise is skewed (see underline) because it is based upon your belief that Jesus had to be killed in the 70th week. There is NO implicit or explicit mention of the 70th week in verse 25 or 26. That is a construct of your mind rather than the passage. Furthermore because of this viewpoint, explicit mention of the 70th week in verse 27 is relegated to a lesser importance and ultimately it is discarded as a part of the 70 weeks at all.
keithareilly wrote:If you wish to continue this discussion, I am willing.
If you wish to argue, I am not willing.
Ready1 wrote:keithareilly wrote:If you wish to continue this discussion, I am willing.
If you wish to argue, I am not willing.
I don't think that there is any profit in it.
keithareilly wrote:Paradigm shifts are difficult because nearly everything is viewed differently. This includes the challenge you have put forth.
Ready1 wrote:keithareilly wrote:Paradigm shifts are difficult because nearly everything is viewed differently. This includes the challenge you have put forth.
I am curious how you can say this. The challenge that I set forth is the way that I approach questions in scripture.
1. What does the scripture itself say?
2. Is there an obvious meaning?
3. Are there other scriptures which say the same thing?
4. Are there supporting scriptures which support the premise in different words?
5. Does the time frame support the premise?
6. Are there other possible meanings?
If you see this as improper or not within your paradigm, how do you approach questions in scripture? What you have appeared to say is that since I view scripture differently (not within your paradigm) that my question is invalid.
keithareilly wrote:I do not see this as improper. Your question is valid.
Think of a paradigm as context. Consider creation as a paradigm, how God has made things.
Does any human being grasp God's entire paradigm? I think not.
keithareilly wrote:When Gabriel provided a vision to Daniel, did Daniel understand that vision? No.
While Gabriel communicated, Daniel did not understand because he lived in a different paradigm than Gabriel.
Dan 9:22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
Dan 9:23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
keithareilly wrote:The same is true for each of us, we each see things differently, we cannot shift the world. We cannot shift each other.
The only person we can shift is ourselves.
And when we shift ourselves, we see things from a different standing point, resulting in a different perspective.
Unless we are willing shift our position, step outside our box, we will always only see things from where we stand.
If you want me to explain to you what I see, then I have to say to you, "come over here, and look from here".
I have attempted to do that but I have not been successful.
Much Love,
Keith
Ready1 wrote: I am certain that Jesus would be just as straightforward with me and that I would come under the same condemnation as these two did. Not because I wanted to, but rather because I do not know all the scriptures and references to the things we talk about. I know that I would love to have the Lord Jesus share exactly what these passages mean.
keithareilly wrote:Hi Ready1.
As I acknowledge I have concluded the week Christ was crucified is the the 70th week.
I ask you these questions.
1) Does Daniel 9:24-27 explicitly state the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the 70th week.
. a) If so, show me the verse that explicitly states it is the 70th week.
. b) If not, Why do you see scriptures implicitly stating the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the 70th week?
1) Does Daniel 9:24-27 explicitly state the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the 70th week.
2. If not, Why do you see scriptures implicitly stating the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the 70th week?
Ready1 wrote:I find it interesting that after each period that Gabriel revealed to Daniel, Gabriel told Daniel that certain things would happen. Daniel 9:24-27 is the passage that we all look at. I have chosen to begin at Daniel 9:25 and end with Dan 9:24.
1. Gabriel says that this time period begins with the commandment to restore and build (many versions use "rebuild") Jerusalem. This had to occur when Israel was captive in Babylon and since it had not happened at the time that Gabriel shared it with Daniel, this is a prophetic passage to Daniel.
Prophecy #1
2. Gabriel also divides the period into two periods at this point, a period of "seven weeks" (of years), and a period of "sixty-two weeks" (of years).
3. Then he goes back and shares that the rebuild included the street and the wall surrounding Jerusalem. He also shares that they encountered heavy opposition. It is my understanding that this happened in the "seven weeks" or forty-nine years after the commandment to restore and rebuild. This is also prophecy from Gabriel given to Daniel.
Prophecy #2
4. Gabriel shares more, however. He shares a second time marker in this passage. He says that from the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem until the coming Messiah would be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks. So as the passage reads, it would indicate that there is a period from the rebuild command to the Messiah of sixty-nine weeks which are inclusive of the initial seven weeks. This is a third prophecy given through Gabriel to Daniel.
Prophecy #3
5. Gabriel gives the next time marker in Dan 9:26. He says that after the completion of the sixty-two weeks, which we know come after the seven weeks, Messiah will be “cut off” or killed.
Prophecy #4
6. Gabriel then shares that after the Messiah is killed, after week sixty-nine, the people of a ruler who will sometime come, will destroy both the city and the Temple. He further indicates that until “the end” there will be war and desolation for this City and people. He calls it “desolation” and likens it to a “flood”. I might add here that if Gabriel had been instructed by God to reveal that this all occurs in the seventieth week it would have been very easy to do so. But that is not what occurs. He proclaims that the death of Messiah is “after threescore and two weeks” but stops well short of proclaiming it to be included in week seventy.
Prophecy #5
7. Gabriel continues on with the culmination of his prophetic revelation started in the three preceding verses. It is all a part of Gods revelation through Gabriel to Daniel. He says that “he” or “the prince that shall come” will confirm a covenant with many for one week. Contextually, this is the mention of the last week or week seventy, proclaimed by Gabriel. The referral to the prince that shall come is probably the most disputed point of the passage. But “he” refers to the last mentioned person which is the prince that shall come.
Prophecy #6
8. Gabriel tells Daniel that in this “one week” or seven years, at the middle of the week or 3.5 years, the prince that will come will put an end to all sacrifices and offerings.
Prophecy #7
9. Gabriel also shares with Daniel that the culmination of the evil deeds of the prince that will come will be to set up some sacrilegious object that “causes desecration” until the fate that God has decreed will be poured out on him.
Prophecy #8
10. Gabriel’s opening statement, (which we could have placed at the top of this, but which fits well here) indicated to Daniel that all of this prophetic revelation has to do with “thy people” and “thy holy city”. Who are Daniel’s people? The Jewish nation who has been delivered into captivity by God. What is the holy city? Jerusalem.
Prophecy #9
11. Gabriel then goes on to reveal to Daniel the fact that by the time that the seventy weeks are complete seven things will be accomplished. They are as follows:
a. to finish the transgression or rebellion or disobedience
b. to make an end of sins
c. to make reconciliation for iniquity
d. to bring in everlasting righteousness
e. to seal up the vision
f. to seal up the prophecy
g. to anoint a most holy place
Prophecy #10
After 7 weeks: Street and wall built in Jerusalem
After 7 + 62 weeks: Messiah is cut off
After 70 weeks: Completion of sin, rebellion, etc.
Why do I see the one week as a part of the seventy weeks when it is not explicitly stated? [Sarcasm on] Because Gabriel changed the topic and introduced another week based upon who knows what, to confuse the issue, to confuse Daniel. and to confuse all future readers. [Sarcasm off] NO! Because the seventy weeks are what Gabriel is talking about to Daniel and the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the final one week component of the seventy that he is finally getting around to describing.
keithareilly wrote:Good evening Ready1,
I appreciate many people ask these questions as a trap.
That is not my objective.
I have already read what you see.
What you see is not my question.
My question is Why do you see What you see.
You wrote ...Why do I see the one week as a part of the seventy weeks when it is not explicitly stated? [Sarcasm on] Because Gabriel changed the topic and introduced another week based upon who knows what, to confuse the issue, to confuse Daniel. and to confuse all future readers. [Sarcasm off] NO! Because the seventy weeks are what Gabriel is talking about to Daniel and the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the final one week component of the seventy that he is finally getting around to describing.
Ignoring the sarcasm ... your response to the question, which I colored in blue, is still about what you see.
I am asking you Why that is what you see.
1) In grammar, an antecedent is an expression (word, phrase, clause, sentence, etc.) that gives its meaning to a proform (pronoun, pro-verb, pro-adverb, etc.). A proform takes its meaning from its antecedent; e.g., "John arrived late because traffic held him up." The pronoun him refers to and takes its meaning from John, so John is the antecedent of him. Proforms usually follow their antecedents, but sometimes they precede them, in which case one is, technically, dealing with postcedents instead of antecedents. The prefix ante- means "before" or "in front of", and post- means "after" or "behind". The term antecedent stems from traditional grammar.
Dan 9:22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
Dan 9:23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
Dan 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.
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.
Ready1 wrote:keithareilly wrote:Good evening Ready1,
I appreciate many people ask these questions as a trap.
That is not my objective.
I have already read what you see.
What you see is not my question.
My question is Why do you see What you see.
You wrote ...Why do I see the one week as a part of the seventy weeks when it is not explicitly stated? [Sarcasm on] Because Gabriel changed the topic and introduced another week based upon who knows what, to confuse the issue, to confuse Daniel. and to confuse all future readers. [Sarcasm off] NO! Because the seventy weeks are what Gabriel is talking about to Daniel and the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the final one week component of the seventy that he is finally getting around to describing.
Ignoring the sarcasm ... your response to the question, which I colored in blue, is still about what you see.
I am asking you Why that is what you see.
I think that I would prefer to answer your question in a way that might satisfy you. Probably not.
While I am not what I would call a grammarian, I do try to follow the rules of grammar. And I try to understand scripture by following the rules of grammar; but when I do so, I cannot come remotely close to your position. You must have some other way to get to it than following specified grammatical understanding. I will try to show what I mean.
Here are two things which should be understood when we attempt to decipher meaning:1) In grammar, an antecedent is an expression (word, phrase, clause, sentence, etc.) that gives its meaning to a proform (pronoun, pro-verb, pro-adverb, etc.). A proform takes its meaning from its antecedent; e.g., "John arrived late because traffic held him up." The pronoun him refers to and takes its meaning from John, so John is the antecedent of him. Proforms usually follow their antecedents, but sometimes they precede them, in which case one is, technically, dealing with postcedents instead of antecedents. The prefix ante- means "before" or "in front of", and post- means "after" or "behind". The term antecedent stems from traditional grammar.
So let’s look at an example in Daniel 9:22-23
2) For this passage we also need to understand that "Thee is a pronoun word meaning ‘you’, used when talking to only one person who is the object of the verb.Dan 9:22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
Dan 9:23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
Daniel is the antecedent, thee is the pronoun which refers back to the antecedent which gives it meaning. Therefore Gabriel says, Daniel, (antecedent) I have come to give thee (pronoun which refers back to antecedent Daniel) skill, …and I am come to shew thee (pronoun which refers back to same antecedent, Daniel) the matter and the vision. In both cases, "thee" refers to Daniel.
So let’s look at Daniel 9:26-27.Dan 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.
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.
Messiah is cut off. Then there is a coming prince. (The coming prince is the antecedent) The coming prince has people. Those people shall destroy a city and a sanctuary mentioned earlier. And he (pronoun which refers back to the antecedent (prince) from which it takes its meaning) will confirm some kind of covenant for one week. In the middle of the week, he (pronoun which refers back to the antecedent (prince) from which it takes its meaning) will cause sacrifice and oblation to end. And he (pronoun which refers back to the antecedent (prince) from which it takes its meaning) will make it desolate. In three cases, the pronoun "he" refers back to the antecedent "prince that shall come".
So keithareilly, that is how I get there. The reason why I see things the way I do is that I try to follow rules of grammar which should help lead us all to a proper and common understanding of the passage in question.
And they do if we respect and follow them.
So how do you get there? What grammatical rules do you use? Why do you see what you see?
keithareilly wrote:The purpose of the project is to accomplish the goals listed in Daniel 9:24. The limit of time imposed in to complete the objectives is 70 weeks. The schedule is imposed upon the holy people and holy city because the messiah is scheduled to arrive, and certain things must happen for the goals to be accomplished and the goals must be accomplished while the messiah is present. Daniel 9:24 is the overall project thesis. It specifies the objectives and the units of time allotted to complete the objectives.
Exit40 wrote:Gentlemen, I hope you don't mind my commenting at this point, as I believe we are on the cusp of understanding here. Let me say that in a more acceptable manner. As you may know I am convinced the Daniel 9:24-27 Prophecy is entirely Messianic. In that consideration let me explain why I believe the 'Prince who is to come' is actually Christ. Please go to this link to see the definitions of said Prince, the word used is Nagiyd.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 057&t=NKJV
There are a number of ways to use this word, these few passages that captured my attention referred in particular to my belief of Christ centered orientation. In 2 Chronicles 31:13 that same word Nagiyd is used to refer to Azariah as the 'Nagiyd'/Ruler, in this case of the House of God. In 1 Samuel 10:1 Samuel 'annoints' Saul with oil because the LORD has 'annointed' him to be Nagiyd/Captain over His inheritance, in this case 'comprehending even the royal dignity' of him becoming King of Israel. Further, in these explanations of the definition, expounding on the nobility and royalty, Nagiyd is referenced as 'the Annointed one, the Prince, Daniel 9:25'.
It may seem like I am cherry picking these few passages to fit my belief, but considering all the uses of the word Nagiyd they all can fit with the concept of being Christ centered throughout the Prophecy. Prefect, Leader, Captain, Royalty, King, is there any way these words would not describe our Christ ?
Consider, if the 70th week follows immediately after the 69th week uninterrupted, in my belief it begins with the Baptism of Jesus, His Annointing from God Himself, for the purpose of 'confirming the Covenant', according to the Law and Prophets. Christ's ministry is three and a half years long, ending at His crucifixion. Christ's sacrifice as the perfect Lamb of God is the what/'He' caused the ending of the Temple sacrifice and offering, there is no longer a need for them. This happens in the middle of the week, and begins the time period that separates the two halves of the 70th week. According to this belief, we are still in the midst of that week, with the remaining half of the week beginning at the AOD.
This belief isn't formed to fit any Rapture belief, there is no mention of it here in the Prophecy.
So the 'what' I believe is the Prophecy is entirely Messianc. The 'why' I believe this is it was 'revealed' to me as I debated Shorttrib from a belief the antichrist was the Prince who is to come, and the 'he' that would confirm the Covenant for the future 70th week. Upon this revelation I did a serious word for word study that confirmed to me the revelation. So much, and many, of our beliefs are centered around this very important Prophecy, it's no small wonder discussion has gone on for so long. I am really enjoying the manner of this discussion, and going so deep into our individual thought processes. I hope I can shed some light here or there, to help out.
God Bless
David
Eze 28:2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:
7. Gabriel continues on with the culmination of his prophetic revelation started in the three preceding verses. It is all a part of Gods revelation through Gabriel to Daniel. He says that “he” or “the prince that shall come” will confirm a covenant with many for one week. Contextually, this is the mention of the last week or week seventy, proclaimed by Gabriel. The referral to the prince that shall come is probably the most disputed point of the passage. But “he” refers to the last mentioned person which is the prince that shall come.
Prophecy #6
8. Gabriel tells Daniel that in this “one week” or seven years, at the middle of the week or 3.5 years, the prince that will come will put an end to all sacrifices and offerings.
Prophecy #7
9. Gabriel also shares with Daniel that the culmination of the evil deeds of the prince that will come will be to set up some sacrilegious object that “causes desecration” until the fate that God has decreed will be poured out on him.
Prophecy #8
keithareilly wrote:Hi Ready 1,
In you initial post, you posted these.7. Gabriel continues on with the culmination of his prophetic revelation started in the three preceding verses. It is all a part of Gods revelation through Gabriel to Daniel. He says that “he” or “the prince that shall come” will confirm a covenant with many for one week. Contextually, this is the mention of the last week or week seventy, proclaimed by Gabriel. The referral to the prince that shall come is probably the most disputed point of the passage. But “he” refers to the last mentioned person which is the prince that shall come.
Prophecy #6
8. Gabriel tells Daniel that in this “one week” or seven years, at the middle of the week or 3.5 years, the prince that will come will put an end to all sacrifices and offerings.
Prophecy #7
9. Gabriel also shares with Daniel that the culmination of the evil deeds of the prince that will come will be to set up some sacrilegious object that “causes desecration” until the fate that God has decreed will be poured out on him.
Prophecy #8
Historical, the sacrifices were stopped in 70AD, It occurred in the middle of the one week of the first Jewish Roman War which lasted 7 years. Titus destroyed the temple, certainly a desecration; he also had a love affair with Julia Berenice, daughter of King Herod Agrippa I. Titus died in 80Ad of fever, after having to deal with the eruption of Mt Vesuvius, and Rome burning.
It seems to me that these historical events fulfill these three things you mentioned.
Do you see that as fulfillment, if not, Why does it not qualify?
Dan 9:24-27 is a comparison/contrast passage. It is not an “addendum to” passage. It compares the good vs the evil in just four verses.
Good:
1. Completion of seven wondrous things
2. The coming of Messiah the Prince
3. Street and wall rebuild in spite of oppression
4. While Messiah is cut off, it is not for his own evil
5, Overcome troublous times
Evil:
1. Confirmation of illicit covenant
2. The prince that shall come
3. Covenant broken
4. The people of the prince that shall come are destroyers.
5. Fate decreed poured out with war/desolation and an abomination
The God which I understand you to describe is imprecise and His timetable haphazard. The God of Daniel is precise to the day. You have saidkeithareilly wrote:The minimum unit of measurement for time is “weekly”. If something takes more than a week to complete, it takes multiple weeks to complete, not a week and a day. If something takes less than a week to accomplish it is measured in one week. For the minimum unit of time is a week. Thus, the schedule is measure in weeks.
While what you say is similar, it is very different.
Furthermore, the fulfillment that you see of Dan 9:24 is of men, while the fulfillment that I see of Daniel 9:24 is solely of God. You have given a job to men that no man other than the God/man could fulfill.keithareilly wrote:The limit of time imposed in to complete the objectives is 70 weeks. The schedule is imposed upon the holy people and holy city because the messiah is scheduled to arrive, and certain things must happen for the goals to be accomplished and the goals must be accomplished while the messiah is present. Daniel 9:24 is the overall project thesis. It specifies the objectives and the units of time allotted to complete the objectives.
What you have said is similar but it is very different.
Ready1 wrote:Just a couple of comments:
1) For all your conclusions based upon the word Nagiyd, please do not forget that the Satanic precursor is referred to in the same "glowing terms" by this word in the following passage:Eze 28:2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:
2) Since it is very difficult to argue against a claim of divine revelation, please give chapter and verse (other than those in question) to support your claim that "the Prophecy is entirely Messianic."
Exit40 wrote:Ready1 wrote:Just a couple of comments:
1) For all your conclusions based upon the word Nagiyd, please do not forget that the Satanic precursor is referred to in the same "glowing terms" by this word in the following passage:Eze 28:2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:
Well, that's just one word, many conclusions can be drawn from it, as you point out. However, the 'prince of Tyrus was not anointed by God, as was Jesus, to fulfill this Prophecy. Law and Prophets all speak of/to Him, the Messiah.
Luke 4:18-21 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.2) Since it is very difficult to argue against a claim of divine revelation, please give chapter and verse (other than those in question) to support your claim that "the Prophecy is entirely Messianic."
Boy, don't I know it. I spent a lot of time having to prove this to myself with Scripture, even though knowing it is there. Shorttrib has done an excellent job with this. I believe we can agree this Prophecy in Daniel 9 is directed at the Hebrew people and the Holy City Jerusalem. And yet somehow the gentiles, us, are included. How so ? Under the New Covenant we are part of the 'many' of 9:27 who believe and receive the Promise made to Abraham. But still the Jews are central, here on Earth. Dispersed in 70 AD, now returning, this is the explanation for the near 2000 year gap...
Exo 34:7 “keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and the fourth generation.”
Num 14:18 ‘The LORD is longsuffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He by no means clears the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation.
These generations are within the seven days of creation, being the actual fifth and sixth days, with one day remaining, that of the return of Christ and the Last Day. Metaphorical of course, but even though, all at the exact moment of time planned by God, which is not known nor explained in Scriptures.
There are plenty more Scriptures, and I know you have plenty more too. Point being, this Prophecy is difficult to nail down as it seems there is a double meaning in here. I can see shadows, or types of this already fulfilled, such as the destruction of Jerusalem.
I'm pressed for time right now, hope to get back soon.
God Bless You
David
Exit40 wrote:Well, that's just one word, many conclusions can be drawn from it, as you point out. However, the 'prince of Tyrus was not anointed by God, as was Jesus, to fulfill this Prophecy. Law and Prophets all speak of/to Him, the Messiah.
Exit40 wrote: I believe we can agree this Prophecy in Daniel 9 is directed at the Hebrew people and the Holy City Jerusalem. And yet somehow the gentiles, us, are included.
While I am certain that you believe what you have written, I see nothing in the text of Dan 9 which indicates that "gentiles, us, are included." I believe, again, that that is a conclusion based upon your viewpoint that the New Covenant fulfills Dan 9:24. That is not what Gabriel is talking about or revealing to Daniel.
Leviticus 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
Loop wrote:While I am certain that you believe what you have written, I see nothing in the text of Dan 9 which indicates that "gentiles, us, are included." I believe, again, that that is a conclusion based upon your viewpoint that the New Covenant fulfills Dan 9:24. That is not what Gabriel is talking about or revealing to Daniel.
While this is not in the Book of Daniel...Leviticus 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
Would this not still be ...
(NLT) Dan 9:2 During the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, learned from reading the word of the LORD, as revealed to Jeremiah the prophet, that Jerusalem must lie desolate for seventy years.
Dan 9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
Dan 9:22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
Dan 9:23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
4) Who did the matter and vision concern? (Daniel's) Thy people and thy holy city.
Ready1 wrote:I wasn't going to respond anymore but I can't let this go....
While that may be "just one word", it was the crux of your argument for what this passage meant. The other portion of your argument was that you had a revelation during a previous discussion. I asked for a chapter and verse which showed that revelation to be correct. I guess I am still asking for that....
While I am certain that you believe what you have written, I see nothing in the text of Dan 9 which indicates that "gentiles, us, are included." I believe, again, that that is a conclusion based upon your viewpoint that the New Covenant fulfills Dan 9:24. That is not what Gabriel is talking about or revealing to Daniel....
But it is pointless to go over this.
...God always included the Gentiles and meant for them to be as one of the people... He mentioned it in the both the Old and New ...
Rev 7:9
After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.
Loop wrote:4) Who did the matter and vision concern? (Daniel's) Thy people and thy holy city.
I can understand what you are saying but …
When the multitude came out of Egypt it was a "mixed" multitude, God himself gave the command in Leviticus that the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you which would make them Daniel's people, where does it say that only the Jews were taken from Jerusalem , don't you think Jews and Gentiles were still co habituating in the Holy city.. and that both went into captivity, why would God who gave the commandment for the Gentiles to be included when they came out of Egypt at this time separate them..
Didn't the whole multitude cross the red sea? They also were at the foot of the Mountain and were still among them when they went into the wilderness.. anyway that was the way I always looked at it...God always included the Gentiles and meant for them to be as one of the people... He mentioned it in the both the Old and New ...
I mean, I look at all the people in the town where I live and I class them as my people even though we are not all kin and don't all believe the same way/things... ? Hope I explained that right..
Dan 1:3 And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes;
Dan 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.
Neh 9:2 And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers.
Neh 10:28 And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinims, and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, every one having knowledge, and having understanding;
Neh 13:1 On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever;
Neh 13:2 Because they met not the children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam against them, that he should curse them: howbeit our God turned the curse into a blessing.
Neh 13:3 Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.
4) Who did the matter and vision concern? (Daniel's) Thy people and thy holy city.
Ready1 wrote:Even from that time, “Salvation was of the Jew”. For a foreigner to be saved from the time that God called Abraham, by and large he had to join himself to the Jewish multitude and become a Jew. If he wanted to have the blessings of God, he needed to be a Jew because that is who God called to be His people.
Loop wrote:When the multitude came out of Egypt it was a "mixed" multitude, God himself gave the command in Leviticus that the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you which would make them Daniel's people, where does it say that only the Jews were taken from Jerusalem , don't you think Jews and Gentiles were still co habituating in the Holy city.. and that both went into captivity, why would God who gave the commandment for the Gentiles to be included when they came out of Egypt at this time separate them..
Romans 2:28-29 - English Standard Version (ESV)
28) For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29) But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Galatians 3:7-9 - English Standard Version (ESV)
7) Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8) And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9) So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Galatians 3:14 - English Standard Version (ESV)
14) so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
Galatians 3:27-29 - English Standard Version (ESV)
27) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29) And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
Romans 8:28-30 - English Standard Version (ESV)
28) And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29) For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30) And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
keithareilly wrote:Daniel 9:24 describes what Jesus accomplished during his visitation.
None of these accomplishments would be possible without his death and resurrection.
Because Christ's death and resurrection was required to accomplish these objectives, the Crucifixion and resurrection had to take place during the prophesied time period, the 70 weeks per verse 9:24.
Since Daniel describes him being cut off after the first 69 weeks, he was not crucified during the first 69 weeks; he was crucified and resurrected in the only remaining week, the 70 week.
And since the crucifixion and resurrection are required to accomplish the objectives listed in verse 24, the time period in which Christ was Crucified must be a part of the 70 weeks but not during the first 69 weeks, the only period left is the 70th week.
This is why the 70th week is historical, not future.
Here is what Christ accomplished and why he came.
Daniel 9:24
24 “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, land to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
Many argue that "an end to sin" cannot have been accomplished because sin is still in this world.
Yet, there is evidence in the scripture "an end to sin" was accomplished.
To argue it was not accomplished is to say knowing the truth cannot set us free from sin during our life here on earth.
Yet, it is what Jesus said what knowing the truth would do for us.
John 8:31-32
31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 33 They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?”
34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave[b] to sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
In the following verses we have historical evidence that people were slaves to sin; but, they had been set from from that enslavement to sin. Therefore, their lives actually experienced "an end to sin". They were no longer the sinners they once were. Consequently, their lives on this earth which experienced "an end to sin" is evidence Daniel 9:24 was fulfilled and is, even today, available to all who want it.
1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
The "some of you" above experienced "an end to sin" in their lives. This is evidenced by the verse that says "And such were some of you". Because they "were" in the past, they were no longer at the time of the letter; therefore, they must have experienced "an end to sin" during their life time.
For those who do not want to "an end to sin"; we have this judgement which has and continues to occur.
John 3:18-21
18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the [f]only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
All the things Christ came to accomplish have been accomplished; including "an end to sin".
We have the records of the accomplishments, we have records of people who have experienced the benefits of what Christ accomplished. They experienced in this world, "an end to sin" during their lifetime.
The evidence it has been accomplished historically is available.
It is not some partially completed thing. I has been completed.
It is finished. And we can experience it here and now in this world.
So, Yes, I recognize the natural literal component.
Keith
That’s who lived and was taken to Babylon. The rest were killed.
Loop wrote:That’s who lived and was taken to Babylon. The rest were killed.
Ahhhh, so you believe everyone else other then the Kings children were killed... what about the ones that were left in the land... so no other were taken to other land but the kings children... I get where you are coming from..
But from history books I've read it was common for a conquering people to take the people from that land and move them somewhere else and put most of their people in the conquered land to take control... Thank you for explaining..
I thought I read somewhere the Kings son's were made eunuchs ...
But for argument sake, let’s say that there was a “mixed multitude”. Please remember that the only other place a “mixed multitude” is only mentioned is in Neh 13:3. So let’s look at the “mixed multitude” of Nehemiah. This time frame is post-Daniel and Nehemiah has a heart to return to Jerusalem, mobilize the remnant of Jews who were left there, and rebuild Jerusalem. He’s allowed to do so, they rebuild the wall, the City, and they have a public reading of the law. Then, their response to the non-Jewish comes.
Dan 1:3 And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes;
Dan 1:7 Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.
Dan 1:8 But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.
Dan 1:9 Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.
Dan 1:10 And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king.
Dan 1:11 Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,
Dan 1:18 Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar.
I probably should have phrased it "A majority of the rest were killed."...There does that feel better?
I have long suspected that Daniel was made a eunuch since he was in the care of Ashpenaz, the "master of eunuchs." It can't be proved but it makes for a good circumstantial case...
Loop wrote:I probably should have phrased it "A majority of the rest were killed."...There does that feel better?
I have long suspected that Daniel was made a eunuch since he was in the care of Ashpenaz, the "master of eunuchs." It can't be proved but it makes for a good circumstantial case...
I'm not arguing truly... I'm finding this very interesting...![]()
And I cannot remember where exactly I read about them all being made eunuchs "the kings children that is"...
Jdg 1:6 But Adonibezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes.
Jdg 1:7 And Adonibezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me. And they brought him to Jerusalem, and there he died.
Return to Prophecy Questions/Answers
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
”