Daniel 9:27

[eternally-gratefull]

Eg I see why you believe what you believe now. You dont read the kjv. There is no wing in daniel 9:27. These newer translations will always point you to antichrist instead of Christ. Thats why I wont read them.

lol. Sorry I do not hold the KJV up. It has its own issues.

To be honest, both could be right, the overspreading of abominations shall be one who makes desolate. still means that an idol or inclean thing must be used to make an abomination. The obomination is overspread from the wing of the temple (holy place) and makes the whole temple useless (for what it was designed for)

it still does not mean destroy, so it still does not mean 70 AD when the temple was destroyed, it still matches perfectly with dan 11 and matt 24. for the words which are used.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Please see this post and this post.

first off. If you are going to be so rude as to point to someplace else thinking your right. I should not even be responding to you.

second off. There are no colons in hebrew, it was added by the interpreters. thus your theory is just that, a theory.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

grammatically 'the prince that is to come' -cannot- be the 'he' in verse twenty-seven...

'the prince that is to come' is not a subject or an object in any previous sentence...so by the basic rules of pronoun reference the pronoun 'he' cannot refer to 'the prince that is to come'

the only singular person who is mentioned as the subject or object in the previous sentences is 'the messiah'...so by the basic rules of pronoun reference the pronoun 'he' can only refer to 'the messiah'

I could buy this, However, it does not make sense.

There is NO NEED to mention a prince who is to come, unless he is also referenced later.

A prince of rome (namely titus) actually destroyed the sanctuary in 70 AD. So why did gabriel not say, The prince will destroy the city and temple?

The fact he did not say the prince did this, But the people of a "future prince" will do this, Shows that that prince must going to be doing something.

and again, Why would jesus place an "unclean thing" in the holy place to defile it? If your saying it was him, on the cross. Your saying he is the unclean things which defiled the sanctuary and made it desolate. this makes no sense.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

the hebrew in daniel 9:27 and in daniel 11 actually says clearly different things...daniel 9:27 uses the words 'abomination' and 'desolation' in the same sentence but it does not use the term 'abomination of desolation'

also the reference to 'wing' or 'overspreading' in some translations is a hebrew marriage term...

context context context

in Dan 11. The "one who does it" is already being spoken of. The act "abomination of desolation" is spoken of.

In Dan 9, The act is being spoken of. This the "one" who does the act is being refered too.

You still have the issue of the word "abomination" in both dan 9 and 11, it refers to an unclean thing, an idol, a detestable thing.

Not a destruction.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Well, you are almost there....The Holy place was destroyed in 70 AD....so that kind of puts a time frame on the events that we're discussing

Yes it does. namely the end of vs 26.

But the rest of 26 and all of 27 occure AFTER this event.

PS Any place built in the future will not be "Holy" - whatever it is, or might be, Holy it will not be.

I never said it would be holy. It was not holy in Jesus day, Yet he got angry when the priests defiled it did he not?

It is what it represents to the jews (who the letter is written to and for) that matters, Not what we think.

To a jew, In daniels day, In Jesus day, And even today. An idol or unclean thing of any type would be an abomination which makes desolate. It does not matter if it literally does that to a true holy place or not.

Jesus spoke of it as future. And he spoke this of a Holy place which was not holy in his day (the high priest could enter without being killed. Gods presence was no longer there even before Christ came)

think think think. With spiritual eyes, not human wisdom.

 

[DiscipleDave]

The Jews to this day is still waiting for the Messiah to reveal Himself to them. When the antichrist shows up in the world scene, it will be the Jews who believe he is the Son of God, especially when they see all the miraculous things that man can do, and this man also causes world peace (with a peace agreement that is broken after three years) but when this man causes their sacrifices to cease, and he himself stands in the holy place, this will reveal to the Jews who he Truly is, NOT the Messiah, it is these prophesies that will reveal to the Jews that they have been wrong and are now instructed to flee Jerusalem, for it is about to be destroyed because the antichrist has desolated the temple which the Jews have built. It is because of these prophesies some (few) of the Jews will be Saved, by doing what is instructed and fleeing their homes.

 

[KJV1611]

The Jews to this day is still waiting for the Messiah to reveal Himself to them. When the antichrist shows up in the world scene, it will be the Jews who believe he is the Son of God, especially when they see all the miraculous things that man can do, and this man also causes world peace (with a peace agreement that is broken after three years) but when this man causes their sacrifices to cease, and he himself stands in the holy place, this will reveal to the Jews who he Truly is, NOT the Messiah, it is these prophesies that will reveal to the Jews that they have been wrong and are now instructed to flee Jerusalem, for it is about to be destroyed because the antichrist has desolated the temple which the Jews have built. It is because of these prophesies some (few) of the Jews will be Saved, by doing what is instructed and fleeing their homes.

Hi DiscipleDave! Where does the bible tell us the Jews will turn to Jesus after 3 years of Antichrist reign?

 

[DiscipleDave]

Hi DiscipleDave! Where does the bible tell us the Jews will turn to Jesus after 3 years of Antichrist reign?

off hand i don't know, but what i said is what i know to be True, Also, it is 3 1/2 years not three.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

I could buy this, However, it does not make sense.

There is NO NEED to mention a prince who is to come, unless he is also referenced later.

A prince of rome (namely titus) actually destroyed the sanctuary in 70 AD. So why did gabriel not say, The prince will destroy the city and temple?

The fact he did not say the prince did this, But the people of a "future prince" will do this, Shows that that prince must going to be doing something.

and again, Why would jesus place an "unclean thing" in the holy place to defile it? If your saying it was him, on the cross. Your saying he is the unclean things which defiled the sanctuary and made it desolate. this makes no sense.

'the prince to come' is mentioned because it is his people who were going to destroy the city and the sanctuary...it doesn't say that he or his people are the 'he' who will confirm the covenant...and in fact that possibility is grammatically ruled out...

and jesus -doesn't- place an unclean thing in the holy place...the desolation and destruction were punishments for abominations that jesus was not responsible for...

 

[KJV1611]

'the prince to come' is mentioned because it is his people who were going to destroy the city and the sanctuary...it doesn't say that he or his people are the 'he' who will confirm the covenant...and in fact that possibility is grammatically ruled out...

and jesus -doesn't- place an unclean thing in the holy place...the desolation and destruction were punishments for abominations that jesus was not responsible for...

I don't understand why that's so hard for some to understand??????

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

context context context

in Dan 11. The "one who does it" is already being spoken of. The act "abomination of desolation" is spoken of.

In Dan 9, The act is being spoken of. This the "one" who does the act is being refered too.

You still have the issue of the word "abomination" in both dan 9 and 11, it refers to an unclean thing, an idol, a detestable thing.

Not a destruction.

daniel 9 and daniel 11 are not even the same vision...you cannot assume that they are talking about the same thing...

in the hebrew the wording is -very- different...daniel 11 very clearly says 'abomination of desolation'...daniel 9 doesn't use this term and in fact says something quite different using the terms 'abomination' and 'desolate'

basically daniel 9:27 says absolutely nothing about who is actually responsible for the abominations...so the fact that 'abominations' are mentioned in daniel 9:27 does not prove that the 'he' in daniel 9:27 is the one who set up the abomination of desolation...

 

[Timeline]

Yes it does. namely the end of vs 26.

But the rest of 26 and all of 27 occure AFTER this event.





I never said it would be holy. It was not holy in Jesus day, Yet he got angry when the priests defiled it did he not?

It is what it represents to the jews (who the letter is written to and for) that matters, Not what we think.

To a jew, In daniels day, In Jesus day, And even today. An idol or unclean thing of any type would be an abomination which makes desolate. It does not matter if it literally does that to a true holy place or not.

Jesus spoke of it as future. And he spoke this of a Holy place which was not holy in his day (the high priest could enter without being killed. Gods presence was no longer there even before Christ came)

think think think. With spiritual eyes, not human wisdom.

the abomination which makes desolate is a hebrew term. It does not fit your interpretation. it does not mean a place is left desolate. It mans, because of an UNCLEAN THING, or more literally an Idol (the abomination), something is made desolate.

Jesus mentions it in Matt 24. When you see the abomination (unclean thing) which makes desolate spoken of by daniel, standing in the holy place. in order for the abomination of desolation to be standing in the holy place. there must be a holy place for it to stand in. A destroyed temple and city has no holy place to abominate.

Luke 1:5-17
[SUP]5 [/SUP]In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. [SUP]6 [/SUP]They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. [SUP]7 [/SUP]But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both advanced in years.[SUP]8 [/SUP]Now it happened that while he was performing his priestly service before God in the appointed order of his division, [SUP]9 [/SUP]according to the custom of the priestly office, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. [SUP]10 [/SUP]And the whole multitude of the people were in prayer outside at the hour of the incense offering. [SUP]11 [/SUP]And an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense. [SUP]12 [/SUP]Zacharias was troubled when he saw the angel, and fear gripped him. [SUP]13 [/SUP]But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John. [SUP]14 [/SUP]You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. [SUP]15 [/SUP]For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb. [SUP]16 [/SUP]And he will turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God. [SUP]17 [/SUP]It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

If the temple wasn't Holy in Jesus' days, then it must have stopped being so after this, don't you think? Why did the angel of the Lord appear to Zacharias in the "Temple of the Lord" to give him this prophecy? Do you think this was a different temple? And from the very scripture that you quoted is says the abomination would be standing in the Holy Place. And then you explain further, that "there must be a holy place for it to stand in." - or did I misunderstand?

 

[GaryA]

first off. If you are going to be so rude as to point to someplace else thinking your right. I should not even be responding to you.

"If you only understood the hoops I have to jump through just to create a quote bubble from another post / thread without being logged out..."

Every other link on this site right now does not carry the session ID with it -- and I find myself logged out after following it. Sometimes it will work with a left click but not a right click ( another window / tab ). Sometimes it will work with the right click but not the left click. Seems like there is a place or two where it will not work with the left or the right click. Nor can I do things like 'Jump to page:' without losing the session ID.

It's weird...

It's sad...

Navigating this site has become a headache.

EDIT: Not to mention --- after I make a post -- the session ID does not carry with it - and I get logged out!


Rude?

I am not sure I understand your reasoning.

second off. There are no colons in hebrew, it was added by the interpreters. thus your theory is just that, a theory.

Whatever was added - was for a reason...

The colons are there for the English -- to add meaning and significance to the English.

"Now, just think about this for a while... Let it sink in..."

 

[GaryA]

It is referring to Christ's ministry. He was indeed cut off in the middle of that week. He brought salvation to the world. His personal ministry was almost exclusively to the jews. How did He bring the whole world the gospel, you may ask, if He was crucified in the midst of the week? Remember the veil, the separation between the jews and the gentiles, wasn't torn in two until His crucifiction. So how did He finish that prophecy? Thru Paul. That is why Paul is so special. That is why God chose Paul from his mothers womb. Who did Paul get his gospel from? Never forget, Paul was exclusively the apostle to the gentile.
The first chapter of Galatians details everything I have said. How long did Paul study under Christ? That is the second half of the week.

I generally like what you have to say here - but, I do not believe that the above highlighted sentence is correct.

I believe the end of the 70th week coincides with the stoning of Stephen. This was before Paul's ( Saul's ) conversion. However, it does mark the end of 'the times of the Jews' and the beginning of 'the times of the gentiles'. This is important! And, of course, it fits the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy perfectly! And, is part of how we know that the separate-70th-week idea is just a lie of Satan! The 490 remaining years of 'the times of the Jews' ( before 'the times of the Gentiles' ) is exactly what the prophecy is about!

Also - the tearing of the veil was not about the gospel going out to the Gentiles -- it was about the new covenant relationship - not needing the [ physical ] temple priesthood anymore.

 

[GaryA]

Dan58 what do you think is made desolate in verse 27?

"I'm not Dan58, but..."

'the temple'

 

[john832]

off hand i don't know, but what i said is what i know to be True, Also, it is 3 1/2 years not three.

Actually it is 2-1/2 years. The Tribulation is 2-1/2 years and the day of the Lord is 1 year making 3-1/2 total. The scripture you are looking for is...

Hos 6:1 Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
Hos 6:2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

After two days (years Num 14:34 and Ezek 4:6) and in the third day (year Num 14:34 and Ezek 4:6) the third day (year) is not completed so this is 2-1/2 days (years).

 

[john832]

"I'm not Dan58, but..."

'the temple'

Actually, the Temple mount. Although I believe a Temple will be erected, it does not have to be. You can read the story, it is the account of David numbering Israel (he was actually numbering his army) and God punished him for his lack of faith. We'll pick it up midstream...

1Ch 21:16 And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the LORD stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders of Israel, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces.
1Ch 21:17 And David said unto God, Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed; but as for these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, O LORD my God, be on me, and on my father's house; but not on thy people, that they should be plagued.
1Ch 21:18 Then the angel of the LORD commanded Gad to say to David, that David should go up, and set up an altar unto the LORD in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

Notice that God picked the location...

1Ch 21:22 Then David said to Ornan, Grant me the place of this threshingfloor, that I may build an altar therein unto the LORD: thou shalt grant it me for the full price: that the plague may be stayed from the people.
1Ch 21:23 And Ornan said unto David, Take it to thee, and let my lord the king do that which is good in his eyes: lo, I give thee the oxen also for burnt offerings, and the threshing instruments for wood, and the wheat for the meat offering; I give it all.
1Ch 21:24 And king David said to Ornan, Nay; but I will verily buy it for the full price: for I will not take that which is thine for the LORD, nor offer burnt offerings without cost.
1Ch 21:25 So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight.
1Ch 21:26 And David built there an altar unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called upon the LORD; and he answered him from heaven by fire upon the altar of burnt offering.

So David erected a simple altar of uncut stones and offered the oxen he had bought and God accepted the offering DRAMATICALLY.

Now let's continue...

1Ch 21:27 And the LORD commanded the angel; and he put up his sword again into the sheath thereof.
1Ch 21:28 At that time when David saw that the LORD had answered him in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite, then he sacrificed there.
1Ch 21:29 For the tabernacle of the LORD, which Moses made in the wilderness, and the altar of the burnt offering, were at that season in the high place at Gibeon.

Not on Mt Moriah, the Temple Mount, but rather at another location: Gibeon.

Now what comes next?

1Ch 22:1 Then David said, This is the house of the LORD God, and this is the altar of the burnt offering for Israel.

And not a foundational stone had been laid yet. God already viewed this location, the Temple Mount as the house of God.

Does there need to be an edifice erected for the Abomination of Desolation to take place? No.

Will it likely be? I think so.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

'the prince to come' is mentioned because it is his people who were going to destroy the city and the sanctuary...it doesn't say that he or his people are the 'he' who will confirm the covenant...and in fact that possibility is grammatically ruled out...

Yes, it is HIS people. But who is he? and why was he mentioned as someone who will come? You have failed to answer that..

Rome destroyed the city (actually Titus did) But as I said, If Titus is the prince who was to come. Why did he not just say, the prince who will come will destroy the city and sanctuary. Saying the people of this prince makes no sense if it was the prince himself. You have God having an angel who speaks for him making a statement which does not make sense, And is wordy, is God the author of Confusion?

Other things which do not make sense. Is the wording (you state gramatically it does not fit. This is far from the truth)

1. You have jesus being cut off after the 69th week (literally fulfilled)
2. You have the people of the prince destroying the city (app 40 years after jesus died)
3. You have the city and temple lying desolate for an undetermined amount of time (literally a time which is to be determined) During this time there will be many war desolations occurring (basically Jerusalem will be in a state of war continually for an undetermined amount of time. (think of matt 24. wars and rumors of wars, jesus is referring to daniel 9) amd NOTHING occuring after these events stated in the text (according to your view) it is just left open. for anyone to put anything they want in there
4. Then you have us going back to the time of Christs death (an unknown amount of time because we can not KNOW according to your interpretation what this time which is to be determined is) to Jesus confirming a covenant for one week. When? At his death (that could be the only possibility because it is the ONLY time he would have made the new covenant alive and real) then when did he cut off sacrifice 3 1/2 years later by the abomination which made the inner sanctum desolate. Making it unclean for sacrifice to God? And what happened after the 7 years were up? (the city and temple did not even get destroyed in this time frame)

Sorry sis. nothing makes sense here it does not fit.

Not to mention. When did the end of sin of the children of Israel occure? Paul says they were blinded, and will remain blind until the time of the gentile is complete. So they are still in sin today are they not? How about the city and temple? Yes it may have been rebuilt but is it not still desolate? are their not still wars and rumors of wars in that great city? is it not split between Judaism, Islam Pagan Christianity and Christianity?

This is what the prophesy is about... "your city (jerusalem) Your people (Natural Israel)

and jesus -doesn't- place an unclean thing in the holy place...the desolation and destruction were punishments for abominations that jesus was not responsible for...

Do what? Do you even know what the "abomination which makes desolate" means. It has nothing to do with destructions. it is a hebrew and greek term for an idol or unclean things placed in a holy sanctuary to make it unclean and impure. making it a place no sacrifices can be given to God (whatever holy place or God it may be)

it has nothing to do with destruction. And jesus even makes it clear (as does daniel elswhere) it is this prince who makes this abomination and sets it in the Holy Place.

nothing adds up in your belief sorry sis

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I don't understand why that's so hard for some to understand??????

if the glove does not fit so to say.

It is hard to understand because it does not make sense and makes a mockery out of the whole prophesy.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

daniel 9 and daniel 11 are not even the same vision...you cannot assume that they are talking about the same thing...

Look at all of daniels visions.

Daniel 2 is a view of 4 kingdoms.

Daniel 7 is a view of the same 4 kingdoms, only with more information given.

Daniel 8 is an even deeper vision of the 2nd two kingdoms. With alot more detail

Daniel 9 is a vision of when these things will end (The 4 beasts were 4 gentile kingdoms which would rule and trample on jerusalem and israel) Daniel 9 marks when this will end, and how it will end)

Daniel 11. is an even deeper prophesy concerning how a leader (the little horn of Greece) takes power. This prophesy has been fulfilled. When antiochus epiphanies desecrated the temple by sacrificing a pig in the temple santuary (a wholly unclean thing according to the law) this also caused the macabean revolt. Which if you would like to study it, you can read the books of maccabees

The whole book of daniel is speaking of these beasts, these gentile kingdoms. So you can not say they are not speaking of the same event, The whole book is speaking of these same events.

in the hebrew the wording is -very- different...daniel 11 very clearly says 'abomination of desolation'...daniel 9 doesn't use this term and in fact says something quite different using the terms 'abomination' and 'desolate'

The same word (abomination) is used in both chapters.

The word abomination literally means an unclean thing, or idol. the literal interpretation is detestable thing. Filthy thing. Idol. That which abhors, That which relates to a pagan cult.

Daniel 11 is reffering to antiochus epiphanes. Who commited the abomination by sacrificing a pig in the inner sanctum (an unclean thing) during the reign of the 3rd gentile kingdom.

He was called the first little horn. The second little horn would be the beast who comes out of rome, Who will do the same thing.

basically daniel 9:27 says absolutely nothing about who is actually responsible for the abominations...so the fact that 'abominations' are mentioned in daniel 9:27 does not prove that the 'he' in daniel 9:27 is the one who set up the abomination of desolation...

No. but the rest of daniel, and Jesus himself (in matt 24) do. You can not use the abomination of Dan 11 to state this is what Jesus spoke of. That little horn had already come and past. as did the abominabel act he commited. Which means Jesus MUST be speaking of Daniel 9 in matt 24 (which also agrees with the fact. Dan 9 is a prophesy of the end of gentile rule in jerusalem, and the restoration of jerusalem to its rightfull owner. The nation of Israel. Why? because Israel has repented and made an end of her sin. This dan 9 is completely fulfilled.