Sir Robert Anderson's Dates ???

[Rev20]

Daniel 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.

One other thing. Verse 26 said "the people of the prince to come" will destroy the city and temple.

Who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD? Those people weren't Jews or His disciples. The prince mentioned in verse 26-27 is definitely not Christ.

Jerico, have you ever examined the translation that Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted, called the Septuagint? It was in wide use in the Greek-speaking Roman Empire in the days of Christ. These are those verses from the Septuagint, beginning with 26:

"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." -- Dan 9:26 LXX​

These key things are included in that passage:

1. Christ was killed AFTER 69 weeks, not at the end of 69 weeks as many claim. The amount of time AFTER, the time he was actually killed, is revealed in the next verse, below.

2. Christ destroys the city and sanctuary by sending a prince against it. History has shown that prince to be the Roman General, Titus, son of the Roman Emperor Vespasian. That is also a fulfillment of Zech 14:2-3:

"And I will gather all the Gentiles to Jerusalem to war, and the city shall be taken, and the houses plundered, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, but the rest of my people shall not be utterly cut off from the city. And the Lord shall go forth, and fight with those Gentiles as when he fought in the day of war." -- Zec 14:2-3 LXX​

3. Christ shall appoint the city to desolations. This appointment of time by Christ is above and beyond the 70 weeks appointed in Daniel to complete the six "missions" listed in Daniel 9:24
.

Now to the next passage:

"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." -- Dan 9:27 LXX​

This passage states two things that appear contradictory:

1. Christ established (confirmed) the covenant with many for one week.
(Thayer's def of Strongs 1412, "dunamoō," δυναμόω: to make strong, confirm, strengthen)

"Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision [Israel] for the truth of God, to confirm the promises [the covenant] made unto the fathers:" -- Rom 15:8​

2. But Christ shall be killed in the middle (midst) of the week, or 3 1/2 years into the 70th week.

That does not seem contradictory when we recollect that Christ spake through his disciples:

"He that receiveth you [disciples] receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." -- Matt 10:40​

The disciples contined covenant confirmation after Christ's murder, which is confirmed in the scriptures:

"But [Jesus] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Matt 15:24​

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Matt 10:5-6​

The Acts of the Apostles are filled with covenant confirmation by the Apostles, including Paul, who seemed to visit the synagogue, first, upon entering a new city. He himself explained that he has expanded his office to include the Jews, so that he may reach some:

"For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them." -- Rom 11:13-14 KJV​

So, why was there no mention of covenant confirmation in Daniel afer the 7 years, if Paul, who did not arrive on the scene until the end of the 7 years, continued confirmation beyond those years?

I am unsure. That is a good question for debate.

 

[Danoh]

You underlined the text that clearly states He is cut off "after" the 69th week.

If I am going on vacation "after" this week, it will be into the next week.

Remember that when this was written there were no verse numbers. There is more than one concept in Dan. 9:27. Christ confirmed the New Covenant as He states in Matthew 26:28. Then later it speaks of the abomination of desolation of 70 A.D. which was the last thing mentioned.
You are mixing them together.

There must be an antecedent for the "he" which is in the verse. The antichrist was not mentioned in Daniel 9. Therefore the "he" has to be either Christ, the Romans or Titus. Making Dan. 9:27 about the antichrist breaks the rules of interpretation.

You are acting as if I have some crazy ideas in interpreting the text in this way. However, this was the interpretation given by most before Darby brought Dispensationalism to America.

The 1599 Geneva Bible was used by the Pilgrims. It contains the interpretation I gave you.

You are taking a covenant confirmed by Christ and changing it to a treaty broken by the antichrist, who popped into the verse out of thin air. You are also placing a manmade gap into the text.

Then you tell me I am doing violence to the text.

.

You want an "antecedent" - the phrase "the [lower case] prince that shall come" is spoken of by the Angel to Daniel in the sense of the Angel's awareness that Daniel already knows about said coming [lower case] prince. Likewise as to "the covenant" said coming [lower case] prince is linked to - and those two pieces of information are/were given elsewhere.

To use your example, If you relate "the vacation you shall take;" details about it, etc., and then later refer to "the vacation you shall take it is understood you mentioned it at some prior time.

Further the notion that Romans 15: 8 refers to the same covenant the Messiah was to come to confirm is an attempt to distort Romans 15 that it fit your ideas.

"The promises made unto the fathers" was much more than just the covenant Messiah came to confirm. You can't have Him having come to confirm the one, while in the same breath asserting He had long ago since prior to His first coming confirmed all the other promises made unto the fathers when Romans 15 asserts he came to confirm them.

There is a huge difference between having come to confirm promises, and the information "but ye would not" and "ye shall not see me again until..."

Compare the following to passages in Daniel as to "evil against the covenant" and "flaterries" etc.

John 5:
42. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name,
him ye will receive.
44. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that
cometh from God only?
45. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in
whom ye trust.
46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Further, not surprisingly, the gap in between Israel being "trodden down of the Gentiles" and "the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" is related in that fifth part of that great image Daniel translated - as to "the days of these Gentile "kings" or powers over Israel - the gap as to this is in that image's feet. Feet are what you trodden a thing down with.

In this, what the Lord was asserting in Luke 21 was that Israel would go from bad off under the times of Gentile rulers they were already under, to worse off at their hands, until said times were finished - this too is part of "the transgression" upon that land yet to be dealt with - Gentile trespass upon that land, together with its influence for greed over there even now.

 

[Biblewriter]

How do you know that is future, Biblewriter? Isaiah had this to say about being tread under foot:

"Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it." --Isa 28:14-18

That passage was referring to the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem, Biblewriter; and Christ was that precious cornerstone laid in Zion that was the chief cornerstone of the spiritual temple, which forever replaced physical temple of the builders:

"This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." --Acts 4:11

"Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded." --1Pet 2:6

"And [the holy temple] is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" --Eph 2:20

This is so typical of Preterist arguments of all types. You find a parallel between a part of a prophecy and an event of history. So you say that the historical event is a fulfillment of that prophecy, while totally ignoring that the prophecy contains elements that were wholly missing in the historical event.

There can be no doubt that the coming of our Lord was part of both of these prophecies. So both of them were indeed partly fulfilled at that time. But a fulfillment of only a part of a prophecy is only a partial fulfillment. For if God really gave the word, and if God can really be trusted, then all of it will most certainly be fulfilled.

In this case, you are completely ignoring the fact that a covenant is clearly set forth in both Daniel 9:27 and Isaiah 20:14-18. In Daniel 9:27, the covenant is between “he” and “many,” and it is “one week.” And in Isaiah 28:14-15, it was between the “scornful men who rule this people who are in Jerusalem,” and “death,” or “Sheol.”

Now this is where your explanation completely breaks down. For if the “he” in Daniel 9:27 is the Lord, and the “many” are those redeemed, how can he covenant be for only a week? And how could it also be between the “scornful” rulers and “death”?

But if the “he” in verse 27 is the coming” prince” of the “people” that would “destroy the city and the sanctuary,” the one mentioned in verse 26, a covenant with this same prince, that would claim to be God, could indeed very reasonably be called a covenant with “death,” and with “Sheol.”

Besides, Jesus was crystal clear that the prophecies from Luke 21 would be fulfilled within his own generation:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." --Luke 21:32.

That meaning is indeed obvious, if you ignore the context of the statement. But what Jesus actually said at that time was:

“Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.” (Luke 21:29-32)

When this statement is considered in its context, it seems much more likely that what Jesus was saying was that the generation that saw all these things happening, would see them all finished.

Perhaps you will show us in the scripture where the "times of the Gentiles" extended beyond the destruction of Jerusalem and the selling of many former Jews into slavery.

The scripture that clearly states this is Luke 21:24, the very one you are referring to. For in this scripture “the times of the gentiles” begin at the destruction of AD, rather than ending there.

You are aware that the word "times" equals two years, in the scripture, aren't you? John (actually Christ) explained it perfectly in Revelation 12. It goes like this:

"And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days." --Rev 12:6 KJV

"And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent." --Rev 12:14 KJV

One thousand two hundred and threescore (1260) days is equal to forty and two (42) months, or three and one-half years, or a time, times and a half a time. They are all equal.

Think about it this way: John said the holy city would be trodden under foot for forty two months:

"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." --Rev 11:1-2

That was easy enough; but Christ had a caveat that, as you imply, cannot be ignored. So let's analyze:

Christ said that Jerusalem would be trodden under foot "UNTIL" the times of the Gentiles was fulfilled. Therefore, Christ was not referring to the entire 42 months that John wrote of; but rather the last two years, or 24 months of the 42 months, or there abouts.

Now, there was not a lot of evangelizing to the Jews during the Jewish/Roman war; but that does not mean the Gentiles were not being evangelized.

Therefore, my guess (and I do mean guess) for what transpired is, Christ had allowed the apostles those two years (or, "times") to take the message to the Gentiles, before their (the apostles) resurrection and the final destruction of Jerusalem.

We all know there was, and will never be, better evangelizing than provided directly by the apostles.

But, again, that is only a guess. The only things we really know are the time contexts; and Jesus was plainly speaking of some event during approximately the last two years of the 42 months that Jerusalem was trodden under foot.

At least you admit that this is a guess. I give you that one. But it is a very bad guess, for in typical Preterist style, you have completely ignored the details of the scriptures you are so glibly citing.

The most critical detail you are ignoring is that during the time these prophecies speak of, Jerusalem was to be “trodden down by the gentiles.” And during the 42 months of the siege ending in AD 70, the gentiles were outside the walls.

It is physically impossible to “tread down” a city when you are held outside that city by very strong walls. But when these walls were finally broken down, then the gentiles began to be able to tread the city down.

So your interpretation completely breaks down on these three points.

1. There was no covenant that met the details of the prophecies.
2. The times of the gentiles began, rather than ended, at the destruction of Jerusalem.
3. The gentiles could not tread down Jerusalem during the 42 months of the siege, but only after the city was taken in AD 70.

 

[Rev20]

My bad. about verse 27 the real question is verse 26. The word "with," (Greek "sun") in the Septuagint, which you highlighted, is wholly missing in the Hebrew. And it does not make any difference which Hebrew text you are using.

I did not realize that. I have not had an opportunity to examine the Hebrew version of the Septuagint found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. What Hebrew word, if any, was used in lieu of συν in the Dead Sea version? I will be very curious to hear your response. Also, where can I obtain a copy of the Hebrew Septuagint from Qumran?

If you have not examined it, are you aware that the Hebrew Septuagint differs substantially from the MT?

"The Dead Sea scrolls decided these issues, by showing that there was indeed a Hebrew text-type on which the Septuagint-translation was based and which differed substantially from the received MT." [Menachem Cohen, "The Idea of the Sanctity of the Biblical Text, 1979]​

"It seems that there is no reason to differentiate between the situation in Qumran and that of other places. The Qumran sect was composed of members who came from throughout the land, and therefore it must be supposed that its salient phenomena reflected the situation of Jewry as a whole. No one would suggest that the wide variety of text-types was created within the Qumran community. The Hebrew vorlage of the Septuagint text-type was undoubtedly used by the Jews of Alexandria in the late centuries BCE, as this was the version chosen for the Greek translation." [Menachem Cohen, "The Idea of the Sanctity of the Biblical Text," 1979]​

And what do you think about this?

"It can also now be proven beyond doubt that the author of Chronicles used a version of Samuel different from the MT and closer to the Lucianic version of the Septuagint, whose Hebrew prototype was found at Qumran." [Menachem Cohen, "The Idea of the Sanctity of the Biblical Text," 1979]​

Powerful stuff, huh? I guess that precious MT is not so sacrosanct, after all. Besides, Cohen states the MT of today was not the MT of the earlier times:

"The existence of tens of thousands of variants in text-traditions of the Bible should be cause for wonder-why didn't scholars and sages of that period point to this reality as a fundamental religious problem, for it seems to contradict the accepted historic notion of a single sanctified text? How could textual multiplicity be compatible with faith in the accuracy of the Masoretic transmission? " [Menachem Cohen, "The Idea of the Sanctity of the Biblical Text," 1979]​

"A glance at contemporary Greek translations, written to replace the Septuagint among Jews, shows that though they reflect the consonantal base of the Masoretic type, they can in no way be identified with what is currently known as "the" Masoretic Text. Though it is impossible to know what the spellings were in their Hebrew vorlage (and the spellings are an important component in the Masoretic recension), the aggregate of known differences in the Greek translations is enough to rule out the possibility that we have before us today's Masoretic Text. The same can be said of the various Aramaic translations; the differences they reflect are too numerous for us to class their vorlage as our Masoretic Text." [Menachem Cohen, "The Idea of the Sanctity of the Biblical Text." , 1979, p.8]​

Cohen explained that one of the reasons behind "the speed and ease with which the battle against the Septuagint and the Samaritan text was waged (and won") was,

"the motives behind the struggle were, apparently, ideological and polemical, aimed at deviant groups (Christians, Samaritans) who had adopted these text-types. . . . It can be said that the unification of the text was hastened by two parallel processes: (1) rejection and removal of "deviant" text-types like the Septuagint and the Samaritan texts, which left the MT as the single legitimate text-type; (2) the formulation of one particular consonantal text and its prevalence in as wide a circle of transmission as possible." [Menachem Cohen, "The Idea of the Sanctity of the Biblical Text," 1979]​

Biblewriter, it appears the Jews went to great lengths to get rid of the "deviant" text types in common use by Christians, which included the Septuagint that was used by our Lord and Saviour and his Apostles. How does it feel to be a part of a deviant group known as Christians, Biblewriter?

Anyway, Biblewriter, your pretense that you are using more accurate translations that I am is unsupported except by others equally as pretentious.

You can read the paper by Cohen at:

The Idea of the Sanctity of the Biblical Text
.

Verse 26 is about the tome between the 69th and 70th weeks, so it indeed speaks of both the crucifixion and AD70, but verse 27 is about the seventieth week, and is thus about a time after AD 70.

I see you don't do math, either, Biblewriter.

 

[Rev20]

This is so typical of Preterist arguments of all types. You find a parallel between a part of a prophecy and an event of history. So you say that the historical event is a fulfillment of that prophecy, while totally ignoring that the prophecy contains elements that were wholly missing in the historical event.

That is incorrect. They are only "missing" according to the highly imaginative futurist interpretations.
.

There can be no doubt that the coming of our Lord was part of both of these prophecies. So both of them were indeed partly fulfilled at that time. But a fulfillment of only a part of a prophecy is only a partial fulfillment. For if God really gave the word, and if God can really be trusted, then all of it will most certainly be fulfilled.

I see nothing that was partially fulfilled in those prophecies, Biblewriter. Perhaps you would kindly point them out.
.

In this case, you are completely ignoring the fact that a covenant is clearly set forth in both Daniel 9:27 and Isaiah 20:14-18. . . . In Daniel 9:27, the covenant is between “he” and “many,” and it is “one week.”

Now this is where your explanation completely breaks down. For if the “he” in Daniel 9:27 is the Lord, and the “many” are those redeemed, how can he covenant be for only a week?

I am not sure what you you are asking, but seven years was all that was determined (decreed) for confirmation of the old covenant with the Jews, Biblewriter. After that, salvation was optained in this light, as explained by Peter:

"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." -- Acts 2:21 KJV​

Why was that not true on the day of Pentecost? Because at that time salvation was only for the Jews, not for "whosoever:"

"Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you [the Jews] first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent [Jesus] to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." -- Acts 3:25-26 KJV​

Or, as Paul stated:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." -- Rom 1:16 KJV​

A half-week later (Daniel time) the Gentiles were allowed into the kingdom. From that point forward, Israel was no longer "special," if you will; but achieved salvation like everyone else by calling upon the name of the Lord. At that time, the decreed time for covenant confirmation and the seventy weeks was over. All that remained of the prophecy in Daniel 9 was the punishment, the time for which was decreed separately.
.

And in Isaiah 28:14-15, it was between the “scornful men who rule this people who are in Jerusalem,” and “death,” or “Sheol.” . . . And how could it also be between the “scornful” rulers and “death”?

How could what? LOL! I attempted to reorder your post in a more coherent manner, Biblewriter. I hope you do not mind.

Isaiah 28 had nothing to do with covenant confirmation, but with the destruction of Jerusalem about 40 years later. Those rulers had made a covenant with death and hell, so they had already broken their covenant with God. There was nothing to confirm with them.
.

But if the “he” in verse 27 is the coming” prince” of the “people” that would “destroy the city and the sanctuary,” the one mentioned in verse 26, a covenant with this same prince, that would claim to be God, could indeed very reasonably be called a covenant with “death,” and with “Sheol.”

That is very imaginative, but grammatically incorrect. The Messiah is the "he" in both verses, which places it in sync with the Septuagint Greek. I have highlighted the Messiah in each translation, including two understood usages:

"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 [by him]. 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." -- Dan 9:26-27 KJV​

"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 [he] 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." -- Dan 9:26-27 LXX​

So, you see, the prince, and the people of the prince, "that will come," are only tools of the Messiah, as had always been in the punishment of rebellious nations.
.

That meaning is indeed obvious, if you ignore the context of the statement. But what Jesus actually said at that time was:

“Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.” (Luke 21:29-32)

When this statement is considered in its context, it seems much more likely that what Jesus was saying was that the generation that saw all these things happening, would see them all finished.

I never understood why futurists considered that to be an argument in their favor. The Jews most certainly saw their city surrounded by armies. And most everything else that Christ prophecied has been historically or biblically verified as being fulfilled during his generation (e.g., gospel preached to all the world, false christs and prophets, Apostles delivered up to be afflicted, etc.) Even Christ coming with clouds is analogous with old testament figurative language of the Lord coming in judgement, which he most certainly did.

In fact, the only event we cannot verify is Christ sending his angels to gather his elect from the four winds; and since none of us have a clue how that might occur, one must rely on the plain words of Christ that all those things would happen in his own generation. The Apostles most certainly expected their redemption to occur in their own generation, as revealed in their writings.
.

The scripture that clearly states this is Luke 21:24, the very one you are referring to. For in this scripture “the times of the gentiles” begin at the destruction of AD, rather than ending there.

I have never read that, Biblewriter, nor does it seem possible. The city of Jerusalem was no longer holy after its destruction. It had played the harlot, and was destroyed by the Lord's armies.

The holy city became New Jerusalem, the Lamb's bride, which is the Church. In other words, the vineyard (the kingdom) was given to others. Have you not read the parables of the vineyard and wedding feast? The wedding feast is most revealing:

"And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city." -- Matt 22:6-7 KJV​

Is that not what happened in AD70? And what about the vineyard?

"But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them." -- Matt 21:38-45 KJV​

At least the chief priests and Pharisees understood that parable.
.

At least you admit that this is a guess. I give you that one. But it is a very bad guess, for in typical Preterist style, you have completely ignored the details of the scriptures you are so glibly citing.

It was not a bad guess, nor have I been glib. I clearly explain my reasoning and ignore no details.
.

The most critical detail you are ignoring is that during the time these prophecies speak of, Jerusalem was to be “trodden down by the gentiles.” And during the 42 months of the siege ending in AD 70, the gentiles were outside the walls.

It is physically impossible to “tread down” a city when you are held outside that city by very strong walls. But when these walls were finally broken down, then the gentiles began to be able to tread the city down.

I believe the prophecy says the court outside the temple was given to the Gentiles (Rev 11:1-2,) which means they would have been inside the city walls while the temple was still standing. Who were the Idumeans, Biblewriter, and how long were they inside the city?
.

So your interpretation completely breaks down on these three points.

1. There was no covenant that met the details of the prophecies.
2. The times of the gentiles began, rather than ended, at the destruction of Jerusalem.
3. The gentiles could not tread down Jerusalem during the 42 months of the siege, but only after the city was taken in AD 70.

You are completely wrong on all counts, Biblewriter, not to mention being glib.

 

[Danoh]

BW, re the following - "The times of the gentiles began, rather than ended, at the destruction of Jerusalem" - what is your understanding of "the times of the Gentiles" and is where you place it's beginning commonly held by Acts Two Dispensationalism [I don't know if they do or not]. Thanks, in advance.

 

[Biblewriter]

I did not realize that. I have not had an opportunity to examine the Hebrew version of the Septuagint found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. What Hebrew word, if any, was used in lieu of συν in the Dead Sea version? I will be very curious to hear your response. Also, where can I obtain a copy of the Hebrew Septuagint from Qumran?

It is not "replaced" by anything. It is simply not there. as in most translations into English.

 

[BABerean2]

Mar 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:



Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
Luk 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
Luk 21:23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
Luk 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

................................................................................

The Works of Josephus

Book VI, Chapter VI, Section 1 (Partial)

How The Romans Carried Their Ensigns To The Temple,
And Made Joyful Acclamations to Titus.


1. And now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings lying round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple* and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus Imperator , with the greatest acclamations of joy. And now all the soldiers had such vast quantities of the spoils which they had gotten by plunder, that in Syria a pound weight of gold was sold for half its former value.


.

 

[Interplanner]

Is the 'sun' question about the covenant (ie making a covenant with/'sun') which would give it a treaty flavor?

Long posts are killers.

 

[Interplanner]

BABerean,
An abomination is a horrible sin. Why would God punish Israel for something Rome was going to do?

In Dan 8, there is a leader of the 'rebellion that desolates' in v13. This phrase then turns into the abomination in next usage. On into ch 9. It was the rebellion that was the horrible sin Dan 9 had in mind. Instead of going out on Messiah's evangelistic mission, most of Israel joined the rebellion of the zealots.

 

[BABerean2]

BABerean,
An abomination is a horrible sin. Why would God punish Israel for something Rome was going to do?

In Dan 8, there is a leader of the 'rebellion that desolates' in v13. This phrase then turns into the abomination in next usage. On into ch 9. It was the rebellion that was the horrible sin Dan 9 had in mind. Instead of going out on Messiah's evangelistic mission, most of Israel joined the rebellion of the zealots.

I cannot say with any certainty which view is correct. However, in other places within his account Josephus stated his view that the abomination of desolation had occurred during the siege of 70 A.D.

The behavior of the Jews inside the city walls would most certainly have been an abomination to God. Even the starving Jews were shocked by the women who was eating her own child.

We also know that many were killed by their fellow Jews before the Romans were able to break through the gates.

Since God saw it all before the foundation of the world, maybe we should also consider all of it to be the abomination.



We do know this, just as Christ had predicted in Matthew chapter 23, their house was left desolate.

.

 

[Interplanner]

I'm referring to the identifying signal... "when you see him/it, leave..." They had to have something marked like that and know it was time to split.

 

[Biblewriter]

I cannot say with any certainty which view is correct. However, in other places within his account Josephus stated his view that the abomination of desolation had occurred during the siege of 70 A.D.

The behavior of the Jews inside the city walls would most certainly have been an abomination to God. Even the starving Jews were shocked by the women who was eating her own child.

We also know that many were killed by their fellow Jews before the Romans were able to break through the gates.

Since God saw it all before the foundation of the world, maybe we should also consider all of it to be the abomination.



We do know this, just as Christ had predicted in Matthew chapter 23, their house was left desolate.

.

Funny, I don't remember any such comment in that account.

 

[Biblewriter]

BABerean,
An abomination is a horrible sin. Why would God punish Israel for something Rome was going to do?

In Dan 8, there is a leader of the 'rebellion that desolates' in v13. This phrase then turns into the abomination in next usage. On into ch 9. It was the rebellion that was the horrible sin Dan 9 had in mind. Instead of going out on Messiah's evangelistic mission, most of Israel joined the rebellion of the zealots.

The word in Daniel 8:13 is phsho. This word occurs 93 times in the Old Testament, and does not mean rebellion. It means transgression. But rebellion is mri, an entirely different word which occurs 23 times in the Old Testament.

Now a transgression is a rebellion of a sort, but the words are simply not the same. You believed this perversion of the text only because it bolsters your notion that it was a reference to the revolt in Jerusalem.

 

[Interplanner]

I believe it because I go with the NIV's translation board over your ability to figure out Youngs and Strongs. Nice try. You would have had more clarity if you had used the Samuel verse that rebellion equals witchcraft.

As usual, you make a mountain out of a small difference so that 2P2P is preserved along with its X000 year gap between 69th and 70th weeks.

 

[BABerean2]

Funny, I don't remember any such comment in that account.

The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus
Book 10/ Chapter 11

(275) and that from among them there should arise a certain king that should overcome our nation and their laws, and should take away our political government, and should spoil the temple, and forbid the sacrifices to be offered for three years’ time. (276) And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel’s vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them.


.

 

[Interplanner]

Thanks, BABrn

 

[Rev20]

Funny, I don't remember any such comment in that account.

I am unsure why you would think that is funny, Biblewriter. Maybe his recollection was based on one of these:

"And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them." [Flavius Josephus, "The Complete Works: Antiquities of the Jews." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Book X.11.7, pp. 573]​

"This loss to the Romans was but light, there being no more than a few slain out of an immense army; but still it appeared to be a prelude to the Jews' own destruction, while men made public lamentation when they saw that such occasions were afforded for a war as were incurable; that the city was all over polluted with such abominations, from which it was but reasonable to expect some vengeance, even though they should escape revenge from the Romans; so that the city was filled with sadness, and every one of the moderate men in it were under great disturbance, as likely themselves to undergo punishment for the wickedness of the seditious; for indeed it so happened that this murder was perpetrated on the sabbath day, on which day the Jews have a respite from their works on account of Divine worship." [Flavius Josephus, "The Complete Works: Wars of the Jews." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Book II.17.10, p.1261]​

"And now, when the multitude were gotten together to an assembly, and every one was in indignation at these men's seizing upon the sanctuary, at their rapine and murders, but had not yet begun their attacks upon them, (the reason of which was this, that they imagined it to be a difficult thing to suppress these zealots, as indeed the case was,) Ananus stood in the midst of them, and casting his eyes frequently at the temple, and having a flood of tears in his eyes, he said, 'Certainly it had been good for me to die before I had seen the house of God full of so many abominations, or these sacred places, that ought not to be trodden upon at random, filled with the feet of these blood-shedding villains;'" [Flavius Josephus, "The Complete Works: Wars of the Jews." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Book IV.3.10, p1349]​

Or he may have been thinking about this footnote where the translator added his own commentary:

"There may another very important, and very providential, reason be here assigned for this strange and foolish retreat of Cestius; which, if Josephus had been now a Christian, he might probably have taken notice of also; and that is, the affording the Jewish Christians in the city an opportunity of calling to mind the prediction and caution given them by Christ about thirty-three years and a half before, that "when they should see the abomination of desolation" [the idolatrous Roman armies, with the images of their idols in their ensigns, ready to lay Jerusalem desolate] "stand where it ought not;" or, "in the holy place;" or, "when they should see Jerusalem any one instance of a more unpolitic, but more providential, compassed with armies;" they should then "flee to the mound conduct than this retreat of Cestius visible during this whole rains." By complying with which those Jewish Christians fled the siege of Jerusalem; which yet was providentially such a "great to the mountains of Perea, and escaped this destruction. See tribulation, as had not been from the beginning of the world to that time; no, Lit. Accompl. of Proph. p. 69, 70. Nor was there, perhaps, nor ever should be."--Ibid. p. 70, 71." (Footnote to Wars, II, XIX, 6,7)" [Flavius Josephus, "The Complete Works: Wars of the Jews." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Book II.19.6, fn704, p.1270-71]​

 

[Interplanner]

In my notes, one of them is Book 4, ch 6, lines 387-8. This is p289 in Cornfeld's photographic archeological edition published by Zondervan.

 

[Rev20]

The word in Daniel 8:13 is phsho. This word occurs 93 times in the Old Testament, and does not mean rebellion. It means transgression. But rebellion is mri, an entirely different word which occurs 23 times in the Old Testament.
Now a transgression is a rebellion of a sort, but the words are simply not the same. You believed this perversion of the text only because it bolsters your notion that it was a reference to the revolt in Jerusalem.

There are several translations that use "rebellion" rather than trangression:

"Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled-- the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?"" -- Dan 8:13 NIV​

"Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the speaker, “How long will the events of this vision last--the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and of the host to be trampled?”" -- Dan 8:13 HCSB​

"I then heard a certain holy one speaking. A second holy one said to the first one: “How long will this vision last—the one concerning the daily sacrifice, the desolating rebellion, and the handing over of the sanctuary and its forces to be trampled?” -- Dan 8:13 CEB​

"Then one of the holy angels asked another, “When will the daily sacrifices be offered again? What about this horrible rebellion? When will the temple and heaven’s army no longer be trampled in the dust?” -- Dan 8:13 CEV​

"Then I heard a holy one speaking. Another holy one said to the one who was speaking, “How long will the things in this vision—the daily burnt offering, the destructive rebellion, the surrender of the holy place, and the trampling of the army—take place?” -- Dan 8:13 GW​

"Then I heard a holy one speaking. Another holy one said to the one who was speaking, “To what period of time does the vision pertain—this vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the destructive act of rebellion and the giving over of both the sanctuary and army to be trampled?” -- Dan 8:13 NOG​

"Then I heard two holy ones talking to each other. One of them asked, “How long will the events of this vision last? How long will the rebellion that causes desecration stop the daily sacrifices? How long will the Temple and heaven’s army be trampled on?” -- Dan 8:13 NLT​

This one uses both:

"Then I heard •a holy angel [L one of the holy ones] speaking. Another •holy angel [L holy one] asked the first one, “How long will the things in this vision last—the •daily [regular] sacrifices [8:12], the •turning away from God [rebellion; transgression] that brings •destruction [desolation], the •Temple [sanctuary] being pulled down, and the •army of heaven [host] being •walked on [trampled]?” -- Dan 8:13 EXB​