I agree. "The people of the prince who is to come" is the Roman army when they destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Your conclusion about timing doesn’t hold because the phrase “to come” modifies the prince, not the people, meaning Daniel identifies the Romans as the destroying force in 70 AD while simultaneously pointing beyond them to a future ruler of the same lineage; nothing in the Hebrew requires the destruction to occur within the 70 weeks, but nothing in the Hebrew allows v. 27 to “jump back” into the timeline after v. 26 has already moved forward — the subject chain is linear, not oscillating, and the grammar ties v. 27’s “he” to the nearest antecedent subject, the coming prince, not Messiah; so yes, the destruction is after the 70 weeks, but the covenant‑maker of v. 27 is the same future figure introduced in v. 26, not a return to Messiah’s ministry, which means the text doesn’t “get back to the 70th week” — it continues the subject Daniel just introduced.
Actually, the waw-sequential structure of the passage marks "Lo, and-(waw)-the-people-of a-ruler the-one-coming he-will-destroy (hiphil imperfect) even-(waw)-the-city and-the-sanctuary. And-(waw)-his-end is with-a-flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed," as a parenthesis between what precedes that segment and what follows it.
The system represented in your quoted analysis is a waw‑sequencing, gap‑theory, Messiah‑as‑subject reconstruction that tries to preserve a continuous 70‑week timeline by treating the destruction of the city and sanctuary as a parenthetical aside, then re‑attaching the “he” of v. 27 back to Messiah by grammatical isolation; the problem is that this system is not a grammatical reading but a grammatical engineering project — it must declare whole clauses “parenthetical,” reassign subjects across intervening nouns, and treat waw‑perfects and waw‑imperfects as if they override normal antecedent rules, all to force the “he” of v. 27 back to Messiah instead of the coming prince; once someone adopts this system, debate becomes impossible because every counter‑argument is dismissed by labeling the inconvenient clause as “parenthetical,” every subject‑chain objection is neutralized by redefining the waw, and every chronological conflict is solved by inserting a “return to sequence,” meaning the system is self‑insulating — it can never be falsified by the text because it can always reclassify the text; the issues are simple:
Have you considered that the desolator that came upon a wing of abomination may have been demonic powers that replaced Yahweh in the temple after the veil was torn and His glory departed from the shadow temple, soon to take up residence in the temple of living stones?
Almost none of what you posted here, OMC, is true or makes sense. But carry on claiming superior understanding, if you must. I have simply freshly applied the recognised mechanics of waw-sequentials to the text. If you don't like the outcome, the problem is yours.
Your idea is theologically imaginative, but it belongs to a system where the desolator is spiritual, the abomination is invisible, and the temple’s desolation is metaphysical — and once you adopt that system, no one can debate you from the text because the text becomes secondary to the unseen spiritual interpretation.
The system you’re defending is not “freshly applying recognised waw‑sequentials,” it’s a waw‑sequencing reconstruction that treats normal Hebrew narrative mechanics as elastic tools for preserving a predetermined subject‑chain, and debate becomes impossible because the moment someone challenges the structure, the system simply reclassifies the clause as “parenthetical,” reassigns the antecedent, or invokes a “return to sequence”; the misapplication is not in your use of waw‑forms but in your interpretation of what they can do — waw‑perfects and waw‑imperfects do not override antecedent proximity, do not create parenthetical blocks without markers, do not allow skipping over newly introduced subjects, and do not permit retroactive reattachment of a verb to a prior noun when a nearer masculine singular subject has intervened; your system requires waw‑sequentials to perform functions they do not perform in Hebrew prose — namely, isolating the destruction clause from the subject it introduces and re‑attaching “he will confirm” to Messiah instead of the coming prince — and because every objection can be neutralized by declaring a clause “parenthetical,” the system becomes self‑insulating, meaning no textual argument can falsify it because the text is always re‑categorized to protect the conclusion.
Oh, OMC. Your system is so hard-wired and ingrained in you, that you are able to roll off erudite-sounding reiterations of your system almost instantly and instinctively .
Your “OMC reacts too fast, therefore his system is hard‑wired” argument is adorable, because it assumes that rapid, coherent rebuttal is evidence of doctrinal conditioning rather than the far more obvious explanation — your waw‑sequential claim is so predictable, so formulaic, and so structurally flawed that it takes about thirty seconds to dismantle; you keep insisting I haven’t shown how you misapplied the waw‑consecutive, but the reason you think I haven’t is because you’re waiting for me to validate a system that doesn’t exist — you treat waw‑forms as magical grammatical override switches that can leapfrog subjects, erase antecedents, create parenthetical blocks without markers, and reattach verbs to nouns they no longer govern, and when I point out that Hebrew doesn’t work that way, you call it “unwillingness” or “ignorance”; your complaint about timing is just a way of avoiding the fact that your reconstruction requires the waw to perform functions it never performs in Hebrew prose, and the speed of my response isn’t evidence of brain‑wiring — it’s evidence that your argument is so structurally thin that it collapses on contact.
It's the copy/paste function.
The grand forensic breakthrough — you’ve cracked the case wide open: anyone who answers quickly must obviously be copy/pasting from a secret denominational vault of pre‑written theology, because heaven forbid someone actually knows their material well enough to respond without a 45‑minute loading screen; clearly, the only possible explanation for coherent argumentation is that I’m frantically rummaging through the digital catechism of the Church of OMC™, selecting pre‑approved doctrinal paragraphs like Pokémon cards, because no one could possibly understand Hebrew syntax, textual criticism, or eschatological sequencing without outsourcing their brain to a clipboard; and of course, your theory that “99% of the time it’s parroting someone else’s work” is ironclad — because nothing says “serious argument” like assuming literacy is optional and that anyone who disagrees with you must be a theological ventriloquist dummy operated by a shadowy pastor in the background; but please, do continue — I’m sure your next revelation will be that anyone who types without typos is secretly using CIA‑grade autocorrect and that fast thinking is a sign of demonic possession rather than, you know, competence.
and none of my sarcasm steps outside scripture like the rest of you self proclaimed followers of Christ.
The waw‑consecutive exists, but what you’re defending is not the waw‑consecutive — it’s a system built on treating the waw as a license to override subject‑chain, antecedent proximity, and normal Hebrew continuity, and that system does not exist in Hebrew grammar. look it up.
Your breakdown departs from Hebrew waw‑consecutive rules at the moment you treat the waw‑imperfect on וְהִגְבִּיר (“and he will confirm”) as if it can reach backward past the immediately preceding masculine singular subject (the coming prince) and reattach itself to a non‑proximate subject (Messiah) without any textual re‑introduction, because Hebrew narrative continuity does not permit a waw‑form to skip over a newly introduced subject, does not allow a verb to “return” to a prior subject unless that subject is explicitly re‑activated, and does not treat waw as a grammatical reset switch; the destruction clause (“the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy…”) introduces a fresh masculine singular referent, and once that referent enters the chain, the next waw‑imperfect defaults to that subject unless the text overtly re‑anchors the chain —
2Sa 24:1 And again for to kindle the anger of the LORD against Israel, then he moved David against them for to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."Your breakdown departs from Hebrew waw‑consecutive rules at the moment you treat the waw‑imperfect on וְהִגְבִּיר (“and he will confirm”) as if it can reach backward past the immediately preceding masculine singular subject (the coming prince) and reattach itself to a non‑proximate subject (Messiah) without any textual re‑introduction, because Hebrew narrative continuity does not permit a waw‑form to skip over a newly introduced subject, does not allow a verb to “return” to a prior subject unless that subject is explicitly re‑activated, and does not treat waw as a grammatical reset switch; the destruction clause (“the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy…”) introduces a fresh masculine singular referent, and once that referent enters the chain, the next waw‑imperfect defaults to that subject unless the text overtly re‑anchors the chain —
but your system treats the waw as if it can
(1) declare the destruction clause “parenthetical,”
(2) suspend the newly introduced subject, and
(3) reattach the next verb to Messiah without any marker, which is precisely the point where your parsing stops being Hebrew grammar and becomes systemic engineering, because Hebrew never uses waw‑consecutives to override antecedent proximity, never uses waw to create parenthetical blocks, and never allows a verb to leapfrog a nearer subject in an unbroken chain; that single move — reassigning וְהִגְבִּיר to Messiah instead of the prince just introduced — is the exact place where your reading ceases to be governed by Hebrew continuity and becomes governed by your desired subject‑chain. I really wish you’d stop being so condescending. I’m trying to help, but you, like everyone else, seem to hate instruction as if you already know everything. This is a global online chatroom—did you think you wouldn’t meet anyone who doesn’t speak Hebrew or Greek? I’m quite fluent in both, but I admit my Arabic is strong on paper while my spoken Arabic tends to sound rather comical to native speakers.
In 2 Samuel 24:1, the immediate referent of וַיָּסֶת (“and he incited/moved”) is YHWH, because the verse begins with וַיֹּסֶף אַף־יְהוָה (“and the anger of YHWH was kindled”), which establishes YHWH as the active subject, and Hebrew narrative continuity allows the next waw‑consecutive verb to continue the same subject when no new masculine singular subject has been introduced;
