The time of Jacobs trouble

[InSpiritInTruth]

Jeremiah 6:8
Be thou instructed, O Jerusalem, lest my soul depart from thee; lest I make thee desolate, a land not inhabited

Matthew 23:37-38[SUP]37 [/SUP]O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
[SUP]38 [/SUP]Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

Oh yes He can!

 

[GaryA]

Dan.9:27
"He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

Daniel 9:

[SUP]27[/SUP] 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.


This illustrates quite vividly just how important it is to be studying the right bible version. If your bible version says what is in the quote above -- "it's no wonder why you cannot come to know the truth about the End Times Scenario" -- because, what the Word of God actually says has been 'perverted' by whatever bible version that is in the quote above.

What is wrong with the wording in the quote above? Here are just a few points-of-error:

~ 'a' covenant is not the same as 'the' covenant -- big difference in meaning!

~ "he will put an end to sacrifice and offering" is not the same as "he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease"; the first has the "sense and tense" of 'forever after', the second does not.

You see -- the Word of God is not saying that it was 'forever'; only that it 'ceased' - allowing for it to be [ only ] temporary. When Christ died on the cross - and the veil in the temple was rent from top to bottom - it [ immediately ] caused the sacrifice and the oblation to 'cease' -- this is the primary significance ( 'immediately' ) in the way it is worded. It does not mean that the Jews never started it / them back up again. It means 'just' - and 'only' - what it [ actually ] says. To assume it means 'ended forever' would be incorrect. If the Jews repaired the veil and started it / them back up again - "then fine" - if they did not - "then still fine" - do you see what I am getting at?

The Word of God is not saying "put an end to" [ forever ] -- it is only saying [ immediately ] "caused [ it ] to cease" --- do you see the [ vast ] difference in the "sense and tense" of these two ways of wording it?

If you look up the Strongs definition for the word 'cease' in Daniel 9:27, you will find that it leans heavily in the direction of 'immediately' ( as I have just described ) rather than in the direction of 'forever' ( as I have just described ).

There are 'fine-point' meanings like this throughout the Bible. And, it is vitally important to be able to understand these kinds of things when studying the Bible. However, if you are studying a 'perverted' bible version - which is "missing" these 'find-point' meanings --- you will "never-ever-ever" be able to correctly interpret properly what the Word of God is actually saying -- because, the 'perverted' bible version has been corrupted by the "translators" that wrote it.

~ "until the end that is decreed is poured out on him" is nowhere even close to "that determined shall be poured upon the desolate"

To begin with -- the meaning of "even until the consummation" has been removed entirely! And, it "goes with" the phrase before it, not the one after it - which is where that translation tried to put it! And, what is this "poured out on him" thing all about? That's not what the Word of God says...!

It is totally "messed up"...

 

[DP]

Daniel 9:

[SUP]27[/SUP] 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.


This illustrates quite vividly just how important it is to be studying the right bible version. If your bible version says what is in the quote above -- "it's no wonder why you cannot come to know the truth about the End Times Scenario" -- because, what the Word of God actually says has been 'perverted' by whatever bible version that is in the quote above.

All the Bible scholars with the different Bible versions, which all of them agree on the translation of that verse, are wrong???

I don't like the NIV much, so I'll use it, because that's what a lot of folks use today.

Dan 9:26-27
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."
NIV

Dan 11:31-32
31 "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.
NIV

Same subject. Per the Dan.11 chapter, it's the "vile person" who does that, and that's who Jesus was talking about when He quoting about this event from the Book of Daniel.

You just need to get over it and admit you're following a tradition of men instead of keeping to the Scripture.

 

[GaryA]

[/B]Hello GaryA,

Regarding the above, yes, I know, that is exactly my point. InSpiritInTruth is claiming that Jesus is the "He" of Dan.9:27, which according to his interpretation, Jesus would then also be the one who is setting up the abomination, which he cannot do because it is an abomination against God. So I was reminding that he hadn't given an answer to that. To be clear, I was claiming that Jesus is the one setting up abomination, but it will be done by that antichrist.

And, I am saying that - in the 'grammar of the language' - the wording of Daniel 9:27 does not say that [ the 'he' that is in that verse ] sets up any abomination in any temple. It does not say that [ the 'he' that is in that verse ] is a vile person. It does not say - nor does it indicate - that [ the 'he' that is in that verse ] is any kind of antichrist.

What it does indicate - in the 'grammar of the language' - is that [ the 'he' that is in that verse ] ( all three places ) is, in fact, Christ.

There is no 'Abominator' in that verse!
There is no 'Vile Person' in that verse!
There is no 'Antichrist' in that verse!

Only Christ!

He 'confirmed' the convenant...
He 'caused' the sacrifice and the oblation to cease...
He "made" - 'it' ( the temple ) - "desolate" - in 70 A.D.

 

[GaryA]

All the Bible scholars with the different Bible versions, which all of them agree on the translation of that verse, are wrong???

YES!!!

Absolutely!

--- if their conclusion is anything like the way this is worded:

Dan 9:26-27
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."
NIV

 

[GaryA]

The 'context' and 'scenario' of Daniel 9:27 is not the same as that of Daniel 11:31 / Daniel 12:11.

 

[GaryA]

The 'context' and 'scenario' of Daniel 9:27 is not the same as that of Daniel 11:31 / Daniel 12:11.

Daniel 9:27 IS NOT describing 'the abomination of desolation' ( specifically ) -- as is referred to in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14.

 

[DP]

And, I am saying that - in the 'grammar of the language' - the wording of Daniel 9:27 does not say that [ the 'he' that is in that verse ] sets up any abomination in any temple. It does not say that [ the 'he' that is in that verse ] is a vile person. It does not say - nor does it indicate - that [ the 'he' that is in that verse ] is any kind of antichrist.

What it does indicate - in the 'grammar of the language' - is that [ the 'he' that is in that verse ] ( all three places ) is, in fact, Christ.

There is no 'Abominator' in that verse!
There is no 'Vile Person' in that verse!
There is no 'Antichrist' in that verse!

Only Christ!

He 'confirmed' the convenant...
He 'caused' the sacrifice and the oblation to cease...
He "made" - 'it' ( the temple ) - "desolate" - in 70 A.D.

Let's look at the grammar then, between the 26th and 27th verses and pick up the subject between them:

Dan 9:26-27
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.


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.
KJV

That KJV word for "prince" can mean a commander, captain, chief, leader, etc. That Hebrew word for that particular "prince" has no other indicator with it, unlike the phrase "Messiah the Prince" does in the previous Dan.9:25 verse. That's the first clue that second "prince" is NOT our Lord Jesus. It instead represented the commander Titus of the Roman army that destroyed Jerusalem and the temple burned down in 70 A.D. Titus represented a type of the Antichrist, which Dan.7 already introduced the subject of the "little horn" (Antichrist), and is to be kept in mind here.

So when reading the "he" in Dan.9:27, proper grammer means picking up the subject of the last person mentioned in the previous verse 26, which is that "prince" (type of Antichrist) involved with destroying the city and sanctuary. Can't just skip that "prince" and automatically jump back to the 25th verse "Messiah the Prince" just because that word "prince" appears by itself in the 26th verse. Another reason is because there's another clue at the end of Dan.9:26 which accounts for who that "he" of verse 27 is...

"... and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

That last phrase of Dan.9:26 isn't about the time of 70 A.D. It's about the very end of this world.

It's very easy to say that last phrase goes with the time of the destruction of the city and sanctuary in 70 A.D. by the Roman army, especially since that did involve a 'war' and 'desolations'. But the "end thereof shall be with a flood" of how it might have come upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is not the final time of Jerusalem's siege for this world!

There's to be another siege of Jerusalem by armies... at the very END of this world. It's still in our future.

And didn't Jesus show us through John that the "dragon" of Rev.13 is coming to make WAR with the saints?

Rev 13:7
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
KJV

What about that idea of that dragon coming in as a "flood"? Didn't our Lord Jesus warn us about that too for the end of this world?

Rev 12:15-17
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
KJV




There's some OT hints to that symbolic flood at the end also by the enemy.

Isa 59:18-20
18 According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence.
19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.
20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
KJV

Jer 46:6-10
6 Let not the swift flee away, nor the mighty man escape; they shall stumble, and fall toward the north by the river Euphrates.
7 Who is this that cometh up as a flood, whose waters are moved as the rivers?
8 Egypt riseth up like a flood, and his waters are moved like the rivers; and he saith, I will go up, and will cover the earth; I will destroy the city and the inhabitants thereof.
9 Come up, ye horses; and rage, ye chariots; and let the mighty men come forth; the Ethiopians and the Libyans, that handle the shield; and the Lydians, that handle and bend the bow.
10 For this is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood: for the Lord GOD of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates.
KJV

 

[GaryA]

OOPS

There are 'fine-point' meanings like this throughout the Bible. And, it is vitally important to be able to understand these kinds of things when studying the Bible. However, if you are studying a 'perverted' bible version - which is "missing" these 'find-point' meanings --- you will "never-ever-ever" be able to correctly interpret properly what the Word of God is actually saying -- because, the 'perverted' bible version has been corrupted by the "translators" that wrote it.

fine-point

 

[GaryA]

Let's look at the grammar then, ...

You are not looking at the grammar. You are looking at everything you have been taught is connected with the verse.

[SUP]24[/SUP] Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. [SUP]25[/SUP] 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. [SUP]26[/SUP] 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. [SUP]27[/SUP] 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. ~ Daniel 9:24-27

The last part of verse 26 - from the colon until the end of the verse - is what I like to call an 'aside' (because, in terms of thought process, the focus of what is being said shifts temporarily away from the "main/current focus" onto something else). Because the focus shifts away from the "main/current focus" - the new, temporary, focus is not necessarily constrained by the "main/current focus" at the point that the focus shifted. What this means for this passage is that, there is no necessity for the "destruction" that it is talking about to have anything [directly] to do with the 70 weeks (the "main/current focus" at the point of the 'aside') - especially where timing is concerned. The phrase "that shall come" simply points to "some time later" - and does not mandate that the target thought/focus "line up" with the 70 weeks in any particular way. In terms of thought process, it is a complete jump away from the 70 weeks that is being "discussed" before the point of the 'aside'.

At the beginning of verse 27, the focus returns to what it was before the 'aside'.

The word 'he' [x3] in verse 27 refers back to the word 'Messiah' in verse 26.

So - with the exception of the partial verse 'aside' discussed above - everything in these verses is talking about Christ.

.
.
.

... there is no 'prince' in verse 27. This is the mistake people make - thinking that 'he' refers back to the word 'prince' in verse 26. And, even in verse 26 - 'prince' is not the subject of the clausal statement after the colon -- 'people' is the subject; 'prince' is part of a prepositional phrase which helps to define 'people'. So then, because 'prince' is not the subject of the clause - and is only "prepositional" - it IS NOT a valid target for the word 'he' in verse 27.

.
.
.

...

The phrase "confirm the covenant" ( 'the' not 'a' ) does not mean "make a [ new ] treaty" -- it means "confirm / strengthen the [ already-existent ] covenant"...

Here is an example, in the same "sense" as above, of what it means to "confirm" a covenant:

A husband and wife "confirm" their marriage covenant by loving and helping each other. By doing so, they "prove" ( show forth the truth of the intent of ) their marriage covenant and strengthen it to the effect of "holding it up firmly" in continual perpetuation.

( "Something like that..." )

The idea behind the word 'confirm' is a combination of the following:

~ "to verify"
~ "to support or uphold"
~ "to strengthen or make more firm"



The verse says nothing whatsoever about anyone breaking the covenant. This is erroneously assumed... ( The assumption is made that 'the covenant' is an agreement to re-instate animal sacrifice. )

.
.
.

Daniel 9:

[SUP]24[/SUP] Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. [SUP]25[/SUP] 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. [SUP]26[/SUP] 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. [SUP]27[/SUP] 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.

These things were fulfilled at / during the First Coming of Christ.

These things were fulfilled at / around 70 A.D.

This is referring to "the finishing of all things" - which is, essentially, at the Second Coming of Christ.

.
.
.

Your question is answered by the 'grammar of the language'.

Daniel 9:

[SUP]26[/SUP] 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. [SUP]27[/SUP] And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The part in bold is what I like to call an 'aside'. The main thought process is temporarily suspended, and returns after the aside.

The word 'people' is plural, and cannot be the target of the word 'he' in verse 27.

The phrase 'of the prince' is prepositional; therefore, the word 'prince' cannot be the target of the word 'he' in verse 27.

The word 'he' in verse 27 refers back to the word 'Messiah' in verse 26.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Here's an interesting version of the 70 weeks prophecy from the Septuagint..

Seventy periods of seven were rendered concise upon your people, and upon the holy city, to finish off sin, and to set a seal upon sins, and to wipe out the lawless deeds, and to atone for iniquities, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to set a seal upon vision and prophecy, and to anoint [the] holy of holies.

And you shall know and perceive, from [the] delivery of [the] word to respond and to build Jerusalem until [the] anointed leader -- seven periods of seven, and sixty-two periods of seven. Again in straits of the times [the] square and wall shall be built.

And after the sixty-two periods of seven, the anointing shall be utterly destroyed, and judgment is no longer in it. And the city, and the holy place he shall corrupt with the one taking the lead, the one coming, and they shall be cut off as in a flood, and he shall order in extinctions until [the] end of war being terminated.

And he shall strengthen a covenant with many one period of sevens; and in the half of the period of seven shall be lifted away sacrifice and libation [offering], and upon the temple an abomination of the desolations will be; and until the completion of time, completion shall be given unto the desolation. Daniel 9:24-27​

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Here's another translation of the Septuagint

Seventy weeks have been determined upon thy people, and upon the holy city, for sin to be ended, and to seal up transgressions, and to blot out the iniquities, and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy. ​

And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince [there shall be] seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then [the time] shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted. ​

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

And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple [shall be] the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation. Daniel 9:24-27​

 

[DP]

You are not looking at the grammar. You are looking at everything you have been taught is connected with the verse.

And you're straining at a gnat, because we are not to lose focus of the information imparted in the previous Daniel chapters prior to Daniel 9 about the "little horn" representing the end time Antichrist in relation to Revelation.

And a grammatical argument over Dan.9:27 while trying to disconnect it from Dan.11 where the ending of sacrifices and the oblation and placing, or "spreading" of abominations to desolate the sanctuary directly relates to it, is even greater straining at a gnat.

 

[popeye]

I can prove all my points by scripture, even if you do not understand them. Here is a couple of examples by scriptural proof the mark is sin.

Cain sinned when he killed his righteous brother Abel, and was cast out of God's presence and had a mark set upon him.

Genesis 4:15
And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

More examples of being marked by sin....

Job 7:20
I have sinned; what shall I do unto thee, O thou preserver of men? why hast thou set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden to myself?

Job 10:14
If I sin, then thou markest me, and thou wilt not acquit me from mine iniquity.


Now the burden of proof is on you to show me by scripture what you said here....

Unless of course this doctrine of yours is just more delusions of a carnally minded mans wild imagination run amuck.

Nope

Those are parallels and types.

You are now saying that only "sinners" can buy and sell.(the ones with the "mark")

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Nope

Those are parallels and types.

You are now saying that only "sinners" can buy and sell.(the ones with the "mark")

Again I give scriptural proof but it is rejected, why? The natural man speaks of what he knows naturally, and of course his carnal mind would lead him to be believe that the buying and selling has to do with carnal things, like buying and selling food and clothing. But how is buying food and clothing a sin? Do you not do that now? Not to mention Jesus said not to worry about what you will wear for cloths, and what you will have to eat for food, for such things do the uncircumcised Gentiles worry about.

Those who live in sin have sold themselves out to sin, and are also servants of sin. And being servants of sin they have sold out their birth right like Esau who sold out his inheritance for a pot of that red stew to fill the lusts of his belly. We are told to keep our souls a possession, but many would put their souls for sell on the open market like a married wife who would turn to play the harlot with the ways of the world. Like the harlot forsaking her first love, she sells herself out to her lovers for nothing more than greedy gain to fill the lusts and desires of their flesh.

Isaiah 50:1
Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

Isaiah 52:3
For thus saith the Lord, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.

Romans 7:14
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

 

[PlainWord]

Again notice whose tribulation comes first.....Romans 2:9 “Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;”

The holocaust is a part of that ongoing tribulation and days of vengeance "of the Jews first." But when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in "after the tribulation of those days"(6th seal marker); then the time of Great tribulation=God's wrath will be poured out on the entire world= time of trouble such as the world never seen.

Big mistake here. The Tribulation is NOT the Wrath of God. God's Wrath is in response to the GT.

 

[GaryA]

And you're straining at a gnat, because we are not to lose focus of the information imparted in the previous Daniel chapters prior to Daniel 9 about the "little horn" representing the end time Antichrist in relation to Revelation.

And a grammatical argument over Dan.9:27 while trying to disconnect it from Dan.11 where the ending of sacrifices and the oblation and placing, or "spreading" of abominations to desolate the sanctuary directly relates to it, is even greater straining at a gnat.

I am not straining at anything -- what I am doing is "paying attention" to what the verses are actually saying -- not allowing other men's opinions to get in the way of a good-and-proper understanding of the passage.

That KJV word for "prince" can mean a commander, captain, chief, leader, etc. That Hebrew word for that particular "prince" has no other indicator with it, unlike the phrase "Messiah the Prince" does in the previous Dan.9:25 verse. That's the first clue that second "prince" is NOT our Lord Jesus. It instead represented the commander Titus of the Roman army that destroyed Jerusalem and the temple burned down in 70 A.D. Titus represented a type of the Antichrist, which Dan.7 already introduced the subject of the "little horn" (Antichrist), and is to be kept in mind here.

I agree 100% that the word 'prince' in verse 26 is not referring to Christ. But, it is also not the 'target' of the three words 'he' in verse 27.

So when reading the "he" in Dan.9:27, proper grammer means picking up the subject of the last person mentioned in the previous verse 26, which is that "prince" (type of Antichrist) involved with destroying the city and sanctuary. Can't just skip that "prince" and automatically jump back to the 25th verse "Messiah the Prince" just because that word "prince" appears by itself in the 26th verse.

I can... Because the 'grammar of the language' says so...

The 'rule' about "the last person mentioned" is not any kind of absolute rule of English grammar. It may work generally in many (or possibly even most ) cases, but there are other things that "come into play" that can alter it. In verse 27 - because of the colon and everything after it - that 'rule' does not apply - because - the last part of the sentence - from the colon to the end - is an 'aside' - a temporary "shift" in thought process and subject matter. There is no direct connection whatsoever between it and the next verse ( 27 ). The word 'prince' in verse 26 and the words 'he' in verse 27 are in totally unrelated contexts. Verse 27 is not a continuation of the last part of verse 26. The temporary "shift" in thought process ends at the end of the verse ( 26 ), and the 'previous' thought process continues at the beginning of verse 27.

Another reason is because there's another clue at the end of Dan.9:26 which accounts for who that "he" of verse 27 is...

"... and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

That last phrase of Dan.9:26 isn't about the time of 70 A.D. It's about the very end of this world.

No. Sorry. It is about the aftermath of the 70 A.D. destruction of the city and temple.

The word 'thereof' refers back to the destruction of the city and sanctuary in the previous phrase.

The phrase 'the end thereof' is in the sense of "the end of [ the action of ] the destruction of the city and the sancutary" [ shall be ]...


Did you read all of post #90?

 

[DP]

I am not straining at anything -- what I am doing is "paying attention" to what the verses are actually saying -- not allowing other men's opinions to get in the way of a good-and-proper understanding of the passage.

That's what I'm doing, and yet we both can't be right.

I agree 100% that the word 'prince' in verse 26 is not referring to Christ. But, it is also not the 'target' of the three words 'he' in verse 27.

Then you're not following grammatical rules, because to determine the "he" of Dan.9:27, one must pick up the person mentioned just previous. In Dan.9:26 that would be "the prince", not Jesus.

I can... Because the 'grammar of the language' says so...

The 'rule' about "the last person mentioned" is not any kind of absolute rule of English grammar. It may work generally in many (or possibly even most ) cases, but there are other things that "come into play" that can alter it. In verse 27 - because of the colon and everything after it - that 'rule' does not apply - because - the last part of the sentence - from the colon to the end - is an 'aside' - a temporary "shift" in thought process and subject matter. There is no direct connection whatsoever between it and the next verse ( 27 ). The word 'prince' in verse 26 and the words 'he' in verse 27 are in totally unrelated contexts. Verse 27 is not a continuation of the last part of verse 26. The temporary "shift" in thought process ends at the end of the verse ( 26 ), and the 'previous' thought process continues at the beginning of verse 27.

I think you've stared at it so long trying to find an end around that Scripture that it has blinded you.

Always, when you have a hanging third person pronoun like 'he, she, it, etc.' the subject is determined by the previous object mentioned. That's English Grammar on that. The colon ) in Dan.9:26 simply is separating the subject between Christ Jesus and the prince that would come later. The semi-colon is separating event times between "the prince" (Titus) and the end of the world.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Jeremiah 6:8
Be thou instructed, O Jerusalem, lest my soul depart from thee; lest I make thee desolate, a land not inhabited

Matthew 23:37-38[SUP]37 [/SUP]O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
[SUP]38 [/SUP]Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

Oh yes He can!

Lev 26.. He prophesied he would do that.

Lev 26 also promises. if Israel repent. God will remember his covenant, and remember the land, and bring them back.


Both promises are still active today..

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The people of the prince who is to come.

Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.. The prince who is to come will be from Rome. Not christ

This prince will confirm a covenant with the many for 1 week (7 years)

This prince will break his own covenant in the middle of that week (3.5 years) by desecrating the temple.

After this, the temple will remain desolate while God pours out hiw wrath on the desolate until the complete destruction of the beasts empire is fulfilled. Or the return of Christ himself.

Dan 9 is not that hard, It just takes an open mind and some thinking..