Why Daniel's 70th week must be in the future

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,553
8,106
113
Bank of international settlements chief talks “absolute control”

7/12/2021 9:01:19 PM GMT

The General Manager for the Bank of International Settlements – the central bank of central bankers – is planning for “absolute control” of the money we all spend.

Augustin Carstens recently gave a talk entitled “Cross Border Payment: A Vision for the Future” in which he outlined the problem as central planners see it, as well as their solution.

“We don’t know who’s using a $100 bill today and we don’t know who’s using a 1,000 peso bill today. The key difference with the CBDC is the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and also we will have the technology to enforce that.”

Carstens views CBDC, Central Bank Digital Currency, as a tool for eliminating privacy and for central bankers to force citizens to use currency exactly when, where, and how they are told.

Dozens of central banks around the world are working on CBDCs, including the Federal Reserve. The effort represents a major escalation in the War on Cash.

It is one thing to discourage people from using cash.

It is something else entirely to introduce digital money which gives bureaucrats the power to monitor and control the spending of everyone who adopts it.

Novel ideas are already being floated. For example, the Federal Reserve could issue stimulus funds with an expiration date, forcing people to spend rather than save.

Officials could limit spending to certain geographic boundaries, and thereby impose a restriction on travel. They could pick winners and losers, favoring some merchants or industries or crushing others.

The only fly in the ointment is that mistrust in government is rising quickly in the US. Getting people who fear giving officials that much control and who care about privacy to adopt the new digital money could be a challenge. Many will actively seek alternatives, such as Bitcoin or gold.

Central banks and governments do have some powerful levers to pull.

It is easy to imagine government transfer payments being converted to digital currency. Social Security, Medicare, welfare, food stamps, and other benefits could be paid using the new CBDC.

Government could also insist vendors and contractors take payment exclusively in the new token.

We can also expect plenty of assurances from people like Carstens. They will promise to be fair and protect people’s liberty. They will say the goal is to make central bank policy work better for everyone. They will also insist they are trying to protect society from criminals, tax cheats, money launderers, and terrorists.

The only question is whether the public will buy what central bankers are selling.
 

de-emerald

Well-known member
May 8, 2021
1,652
574
113
Agreed. Jesus use of the Noah archetype is entirely consistent with Israel prevailing through the tribulation. Furthermore there's always the potential (and REAL) manifestation of the Chuck Missler theory of Nephilim/DNA tampering/Trans-humanism going on TODAY as it
parallels back to the time before the flood (fallen angels/daughters of Adam Nephilim half breeds) to consider......:oops:
I guess then since your free from tribulation theres no way you could be a half breed either.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
11 And from the time the daily sacrifice was removed and the silent abomination placed, is one thousand, two hundred, and ninety.
יאוּמֵעֵת֙ הוּסַ֣ר הַתָּמִ֔יד וְלָתֵ֖ת שִׁקּ֣וּץ שֹׁמֵ֑ם יָמִ֕ים אֶ֖לֶף מָאתַ֥יִם וְתִשְׁעִֽים:

Shiqquts is used in the following ways:
  1. In Daniel's prophecies in Daniel 11:31 (cf. 12:11), it is generally interpreted as referring to the fearful calamities that were to fall on the Jews in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, saying "And they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate." Jerome, and most of the Christian fathers, suppose that the reference is to Antiochus as the type of Antichrist, and that the description passes from the type to the antitype. Idolatry is presented as the chief sin in the Bible, and shiqquts is often used to describe such.
  2. In his campaign of Hellenization, Antiochus caused an altar to be erected on the altar for burnt-offerings of the Second Temple, on which pig sacrifices were offered to Zeus Olympios. (Comp. 1 Maccabees 1:54). Following the wording of Daniel 9:27, this may have been the abomination of desolation of Jerusalem.
  3. sinful sacrifices (Isaiah 66:3)
  4. idolatry (Deuteronomy 29:17, Ezekiel 20:7,8, 1Kings 11:5-7, Jeremiah 13:27)
  5. witchcraft (2 Kings 23:24)
Dictionary of biblical languages with semantic domains (hebrew)

9199 שִׁקּוּץ (šiq·qûṣ): n.masc.; ≡ Str 8251; TWOT 2459b—1. LN 53.33–53.40 vileness, i.e., a state of detestable uncleanness (Hos 9:10+); 2. LN 53.33–53.40 vile idol, i.e., an idol, and the pagan god which it represents, with a special focus of being an abominable, repulsive thing which causes covenantal uncleanness (Dt 29:16[EB 17]; 1Ki 11:5, 7; 2Ki 23:13,24; 2Ch 15:8; Isa 66:3; Jer 4:1; 7:30; 13:27; 16:18; 32:34; Eze 5:11; 7:20; 11:18, 21; 20:7, 8, 30; 37:23+), see also domain LN 6.96–6.101; 3. LN 53.33–53.40 filth, i.e., a vile object which can be thrown, and contact brings abhorrence and uncleanness (Na 3:6+); 4. LN 53.33–53.40 forbidden food, i.e., any of the food which cause uncleanness (Zec 9:7+), see also domain LN 5.1–5.22; 5. LN 53.33–53.40 unit: שִׁקּוּץ שָׁמֵם (šiq·qûṣ šā·mēm)1 abomination that causes desolation, a horrible thing which defiles, i.e., an object or event causing the vacating of a holy site (Da 9:27; 11:31; 12:11+)


A concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

שִׁקּוּץ, שִׁקֻּץ: pl. שִׁקּוּצִים, cs. שִׁקּוּצֵי, sf. שִׁקּוּצֶיךָ, שִׁקּוּצֵיהֶם:—1. (pagan) abominable idol 2 K 23:24, of Milcom 1 K 11:5 &c.;—2. s.thg abominable (related to pagan cult) Na 3:6.



The Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon

11:31 detested thing;—abs. שִׁקּוּץ Dn 11:31; 12:11, cstr. שִׁקֻּץ 1 K 11:5 +; pl. שִׁקּוּצִים 2 Ch 15:8, שִׁקֻּצִים 2 K 23:24; cstr. שִׁקּוּצֵי Ez 20:7, 8; sf. שִׁקּוּצֵיהֶם Je 16:18 +, etc.—detested thing, epith. of Isr. Ho 9:10 (si vera l.; not elsewhere bef. Dt); of filth Na 3:6; appar. of unclean food Zc 9:7 (as שֶׁקֶץ); of idols (often || תּוֹעֵבָה, גִּלּוּל, etc.), Dt 29:16; 2 K 23:13, 24; Is 66:3; Je 4:1; 7:30 = 32:34; 13:27; 16:18; Ez 5:11; 7:20; 11:18, 21; 20:7, 8, 30; 37:23; of idolatrous practices Dn 9:27, but read prob. as 11:31 (so 𝔊 Θ), and כַּנּוֹ for כנף (v. Dr); שׁ׳ (םְ)שֹׁמֵם 11:31; 12:11 detested thing causing horror is the heathen altar erected in temple by Ant. Epiph., with (prob.) a statue of Zeus Olympios = (Ph.) בעלשמם lord of heaven; the prophet puts שִׁקּוּץ for בעל, and (םְ)שֹׁמֵם) for שָׁמַיִם; cf. Nes iv (1884), 248 Che 105 Dr Dn.
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,793
4,298
113
mywebsite.us
If you follow the way Daniel is written, its clear the he there is not the messiah, because the same he is the one who brings the abomination of desolation:

"He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’" [This HE here is not Jesus, because look at the following sentences;]

In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.
And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”
Sorry, but you are not interpreting the passage correctly.

There IS NO "abomination of desolation" associated with the 'he' in that passage.

If your bible actually words it that way, you have a bad translation.

"I promise you" - the word 'he' in verse 27 (all three) does in fact refer back to the word 'Messiah' in verse 26 - and is in fact talking about Jesus during His First Coming.

The things you think 'he' is doing is not what the passage is saying

Please read:

http://mywebsite.us/BibleStudy/Seventy_Weeks.html
 
Jun 9, 2021
1,871
425
83
the same who think there exempt from tribulation, also mock the law, and take Judgement into there own hands. i dont think there taking there thoughts captive, or truly understand how important it is to fear Gods Judgement. or Gods laws. by some of there prideful remarks,
Amen!
 
Jun 9, 2021
1,871
425
83
Dictionary of biblical languages with semantic domains (hebrew)

9199 שִׁקּוּץ (šiq·qûṣ): n.masc.; ≡ Str 8251; TWOT 2459b—1. LN 53.33–53.40 vileness, i.e., a state of detestable uncleanness (Hos 9:10+); 2. LN 53.33–53.40 vile idol, i.e., an idol, and the pagan god which it represents, with a special focus of being an abominable, repulsive thing which causes covenantal uncleanness (Dt 29:16[EB 17]; 1Ki 11:5, 7; 2Ki 23:13,24; 2Ch 15:8; Isa 66:3; Jer 4:1; 7:30; 13:27; 16:18; 32:34; Eze 5:11; 7:20; 11:18, 21; 20:7, 8, 30; 37:23+), see also domain LN 6.96–6.101; 3. LN 53.33–53.40 filth, i.e., a vile object which can be thrown, and contact brings abhorrence and uncleanness (Na 3:6+); 4. LN 53.33–53.40 forbidden food, i.e., any of the food which cause uncleanness (Zec 9:7+), see also domain LN 5.1–5.22; 5. LN 53.33–53.40 unit: שִׁקּוּץ שָׁמֵם (šiq·qûṣ šā·mēm)1 abomination that causes desolation, a horrible thing which defiles, i.e., an object or event causing the vacating of a holy site (Da 9:27; 11:31; 12:11+)


A concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

שִׁקּוּץ, שִׁקֻּץ: pl. שִׁקּוּצִים, cs. שִׁקּוּצֵי, sf. שִׁקּוּצֶיךָ, שִׁקּוּצֵיהֶם:—1. (pagan) abominable idol 2 K 23:24, of Milcom 1 K 11:5 &c.;—2. s.thg abominable (related to pagan cult) Na 3:6.



The Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon

11:31 detested thing;—abs. שִׁקּוּץ Dn 11:31; 12:11, cstr. שִׁקֻּץ 1 K 11:5 +; pl. שִׁקּוּצִים 2 Ch 15:8, שִׁקֻּצִים 2 K 23:24; cstr. שִׁקּוּצֵי Ez 20:7, 8; sf. שִׁקּוּצֵיהֶם Je 16:18 +, etc.—detested thing, epith. of Isr. Ho 9:10 (si vera l.; not elsewhere bef. Dt); of filth Na 3:6; appar. of unclean food Zc 9:7 (as שֶׁקֶץ); of idols (often || תּוֹעֵבָה, גִּלּוּל, etc.), Dt 29:16; 2 K 23:13, 24; Is 66:3; Je 4:1; 7:30 = 32:34; 13:27; 16:18; Ez 5:11; 7:20; 11:18, 21; 20:7, 8, 30; 37:23; of idolatrous practices Dn 9:27, but read prob. as 11:31 (so 𝔊 Θ), and כַּנּוֹ for כנף (v. Dr); שׁ׳ (םְ)שֹׁמֵם 11:31; 12:11 detested thing causing horror is the heathen altar erected in temple by Ant. Epiph., with (prob.) a statue of Zeus Olympios = (Ph.) בעלשמם lord of heaven; the prophet puts שִׁקּוּץ for בעל, and (םְ)שֹׁמֵם) for שָׁמַיִם; cf. Nes iv (1884), 248 Che 105 Dr Dn.
My sources come from those who Speak Hebrew as a first Language this very day. I trust their Version since it is their [NATURAL]Language!
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Sorry, but you are not interpreting the passage correctly.

There IS NO "abomination of desolation" associated with the 'he' in that passage.

If your bible actually words it that way, you have a bad translation.

"I promise you" - the word 'he' in verse 27 (all three) does in fact refer back to the word 'Messiah' in verse 26 - and is in fact talking about Jesus during His First Coming.

The things you think 'he' is doing is not what the passage is saying

Please read:

http://mywebsite.us/BibleStudy/Seventy_Weeks.html
Your wrong

jesus did not and will not commit an abomination of desolation, and cause the wing of the temple to be desolate until the consummation is poured on the desolator (the one who desolated the holy place)
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
My sources come from those who Speak Hebrew as a first Language this very day. I trust their Version since it is their [NATURAL]Language!
Your source agrees with you

That’s All you care about

there was no AOD in ad70, you can try to spin it however you want, your wrong

as I said believe whatever you want, you will find out one day, thankfully, your eternal destiny will not be bound by your belief in the matter, although I do not think Jesus will be happy you misinterpreted the message of Gabriel to Daniel so poorly
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,793
4,298
113
mywebsite.us
Your wrong

jesus did not and will not commit an abomination of desolation, and cause the wing of the temple to be desolate until the consummation is poured on the desolator (the one who desolated the holy place)
I am not wrong.

The passage DOES NOT suggest in any way that Jesus will commit any such thing.

There is no 'wing' in the passage, either - you have a bad bible translation.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
I am not wrong.

The passage DOES NOT suggest in any way that Jesus will commit any such thing.

There is no 'wing' in the passage, either - you have a bad bible translation.
Your right, it does not.

because Jesus in not the prince who is to come who confirms a covenant for 1 week, and in the middle of the week, places an abomination which causes desolation.

the prince is of the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary, which we know happened in 70ad, which would make him come out of Rome or Europe
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,793
4,298
113
mywebsite.us
Your right, it does not.

because Jesus in not the prince who is to come who confirms a covenant for 1 week, and in the middle of the week, places an abomination which causes desolation.

the prince is of the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary, which we know happened in 70ad, which would make him come out of Rome or Europe
The word(s) 'he' in verse 27 ARE NOT the 'prince' of verse 26.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
The word(s) 'he' in verse 27 ARE NOT the 'prince' of verse 26.
It most definitely is not Christ.

he must be the prince, otherwise, saying the “prince who is to come” is meaningless.

the things you must do to make the word He mean Christ is up there, it makes no sense, in the passage, in scripture, and in all of prophecy
 

de-emerald

Well-known member
May 8, 2021
1,652
574
113
On the other hand, the following is what will happen to the wicked from the nations of the world:

"And from His mouth proceeds a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations

The sharp sword that proceeds from the Lord's mouth is figurative referring to the spoken word of God. No individual who worships the beast, his image and receives his mark, will enter into the millennial kingdom.
Yup ive always had a problem understanding this scripture. We look at the scripture where a sceptre was used by moses, when he lowered it, the armies would lose in battle and when he raised it the armies would win, so more evidence the sceptre was used to command Gods wrath. on the other hand we see what youve wrote which is the sharp sword which comes out of the mouth of Jesus will strike nations down in the 1000 reign of christ, which does sound like more wrath in that period, where Gods children are present, but then on the other hand, we see the sword is used to describe the word of God, The other prohecies of there being wrath on the 1000 years reign of christ is

Hosea 11:10.
10They will walk after the LORD; He will roar like a lion. When He roars, His children will come trembling from the west. 11They will come trembling like birds from Egypt and like doves from the land of Assyria. Then I will settle them in their homes, declares the LORD.…

More indication that Gods children are on earth and present during tribulation the Wrath. in the 7 year great tribulation and afterwards in the 1000 year reign of christ.
 

de-emerald

Well-known member
May 8, 2021
1,652
574
113
Exactly my point! Just as the earthquake, the rocks splitting and the curtain in temple torn in two was a sign to cause the Centurion to say, "Truly this was the Son of God!" So it was also a sign when all of those who resurrected went back into the city where they were seen by the people.
The earthquake and the curtain in the temple being torn in two is a big enough sign on its own merit. the ot saint being resurrected from the grave is a sign to lol. but anyhow, they couldnt of just been walking around in a death like state. they would have had to recieve something lol. surely you can see that.
 

de-emerald

Well-known member
May 8, 2021
1,652
574
113
You don't remember information that I have provided. I never said that there was no other wrath after the tribulation period. I said that the tribulation period was a specific time of God's wrath that has been prophesied of for at least 3000 years, referred to as the day of the Lord. It is obviously wrath when God rains fire down on that group that surround Jerusalem. But it is not the time of wrath that I have been speaking about. I have been focused in on God's coming wrath which is the seals, trumpet and bowl judgments which will cover a seven year time period. When God rains fire down upon that group at the end of the thousand years, it will just be a quick event and over with and then on to the great white throne judgment. Do you see the difference between those events?
I have remembered. Its still diffacult to understand that there will be none of Gods children present on earth in the 7 year period of tribulation (wrath) when theres clear indication the 144.00 tribulation saints will be there in the 7 year period of wrath. and after the 7 year period of wrath, theres clear indication that Gods children are present on earth, for the 1000 year reign of christ.
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,793
4,298
113
mywebsite.us
It most definitely is not Christ.
It most definitely is Christ.

The 'grammar of the language' says it is - the word(s) 'he' most definitely refer back to the word 'Messiah' in verse 26.

An explanation is given on this web page:

http://mywebsite.us/BibleStudy/Seventy_Weeks.html

It most definitely is not some futuristic 'antichrist' figure.

he must be the prince, otherwise, saying the “prince who is to come” is meaningless.
It has meaning regardless of who 'he' is - in the 'grammar of the language', the two are not [directly] associated or connected in any way.

the things you must do to make the word He mean Christ is up there, it makes no sense, in the passage, in scripture, and in all of prophecy
It makes complete perfect sense if you interpret the passage correctly.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,553
8,106
113
It most definitely is Christ.

The 'grammar of the language' says it is - the word(s) 'he' most definitely refer back to the word 'Messiah' in verse 26.

An explanation is given on this web page:

http://mywebsite.us/BibleStudy/Seventy_Weeks.html

It most definitely is not some futuristic 'antichrist' figure.


It has meaning regardless of who 'he' is - in the 'grammar of the language', the two are not [directly] associated or connected in any way.


It makes complete perfect sense if you interpret the passage correctly.
“DISCERNMENT is not simply telling the difference between what is Right and Wrong;
rather, it is the difference between Right and almost right.” C.H. Spurgeon

Unfortunately, I don't think you are even so much as "almost right".....:rolleyes:
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
It most definitely is Christ.

The 'grammar of the language' says it is - the word(s) 'he' most definitely refer back to the word 'Messiah' in verse 26.

An explanation is given on this web page:

http://mywebsite.us/BibleStudy/Seventy_Weeks.html

It most definitely is not some futuristic 'antichrist' figure.
It most definitely is nit Christ. No matter what some web page says. I have studied this for over 3 decades I have seen all the arguments and non of them fit the oassage

It has meaning regardless of who 'he' is - in the 'grammar of the language', the two are not [directly] associated or connected in any way.
If you want to believe this feel free. I can’t destroy the word that way.

It makes complete perfect sense if you interpret the passage correctly.
It only make sense if you misinterpret that passage and take it out of context
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,793
4,298
113
mywebsite.us
“DISCERNMENT is not simply telling the difference between what is Right and Wrong;
rather, it is the difference between Right and almost right.” C.H. Spurgeon

Unfortunately, I don't think you are even so much as "almost right".....:rolleyes:
DISCERNMENT is required to make the difference between having a good understanding of what a verse or passage of scripture is actually saying and a having a faulty perception based on a man-made contrived idea.

What you think Daniel 9:24-27 is saying comes from an "outside influence" and not the passage itself.

If you will allow the passage to "interpret itself", you will discover that it is about the "400 years of silence", the First Coming of Christ, and the events circa 70 A.D.

You are totally disregarding the context of the chapter.

You are totally disregarding the common-sense direct-approach meaning of the 490 year span of time given by the prophecy.

There is no break/gap.

And, the base-level nature of the prophecy both declares it and guarantees it.