7 year peace treaty, what 7 year peace treaty?

[Douggg]

Jesus ministry was 3 and a half years. He was cut off.
I dont know what dougg is talking about, we arent looking for another messiah. The jewish ppl certainly arent, Jesus is their messiah. If they dont know this, they certainly will know by now. Its just people refuse to believe.

Nobody but Jesus could make the new covenant and it has ALREADY beeen made.

No, we aren't looking for another messiah. But Judaism, the Jews, are.

"The jewish ppl certainly arent," Really I don't know why you would say that. The Jews reject that Jesus is the messiah, and are looking for someone else coming as the "real messiah" (in their terminology).

Judaism 101.com - the mashiach (messiah):
http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

 

[Douggg]

26“Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.

The antichrist is killed, and the next prince's people (the 8th head of Revelation 17, the resurrected head, the Revelation 13 beast from the sea) destroys the city and sanctuary (the woman is forced into the wilderness, Rev 12's flood). That war is Trumpet 6's war, what I think Dougg thinks is the war that leads to the antichrist receiving power and the start of the 3rd temple. This is when Zerubabbel and Joshua start their witnessing for 1260 days.

What? The Messiah is the antichrist? Why? Why? Why? Do you come up with sort of craziness?

Get a KJV translation.

 

[BABerean2]

What? The Messiah is the antichrist? Why? Why? Why? Do you come up with sort of craziness?

Get a KJV translation.

How about a 1599 Geneva translation...


Daniel 9:27


And he (a) 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 (b) cease, (c) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.

(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.

(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.

.

 

[precepts]

precepts, I took verse 9:26 broke it down into its four independent clauses and highlighted the subject and verb in each, and underlined the conjunction "and" joining them together into a compound sentence.

The grammar of what I presented is correct.

You're faking it. Colons are not conjunctions, and an "and" after a colon does not make it a conjunction. Anything after a colon is an appositive. It cannot be an independent clause. It has to be a subordinate clause.

A colon is not a conjunction, agreed, but if you examine the text you will see there is an "and" joining each of the 4 independent clauses.

You are faking it again. It could have been a but, colons are not conjunctions. Anything after a colon is an appositive, a subordinate clause. It could never be an independent clause. The colon dictates that in grammar. You can't just ignore the colon because it's followed by an "and".

Conjunctions join. While colons, semicolons, commas separate.

Colons do not separate anything. You are faking. Look it up!

The 4 independent clauses are separated by a colon, then a semicolon, then a comma. The colon is used for the strongest separation.

Which are?

The first clause (1) ends with a colon because a colon is stronger separation than a semi-colon. So the first clause of the messiah cutoff is strongly separated from clause (2). And as we can see the Messiah is cutoff in the first clause, not to be around in any of the following clauses. Which in fact the temple and city were destroyed 40 years approximately after Jesus's crucifixion.

1. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: (<=colon)

2. and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; (<=semi=colon)

For the last time, the first clause ends with a colon meaning what follows is in apposition to it. The clause that follows the main clause is going into details of the "Mess--h being cut off." It is explaining in more details how the Mess--h is cut off. That's what the colon means. The semicolon is used because the 3rd clause is a compound appositive, compounded with clause 2.

The second clause (2) ends with a semicolon because (3) is not a strongly separated than (1) to (2).

3. and the end thereof shall be with a flood, (<= comma)

4. and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

(3) is separated from (4) by the weakest of the three punctuation marks a comma.

btw, an appositive (copy and paste) ...

In English grammar, an appositive is a noun, noun phrase, or series of nouns placed next to another word or phrase to identify or rename it. an example would be (made up by me) ... There goes Billy, the class president. In this case, "the class president" is the appositive to Billy.

....an appositive does not apply to clauses. A clause has a subject and verb. A phrase does not.

Appositives do apply to clauses. You're faking it again. Read the rest of the rules and you will see colons are used in one of four ways, and appositive clauses are one.

I'm not going to go thru this with you again. Read the rest of the rules under the uses of a colon please!

 

[Goodbook]

They are looking for their messiah and only Jesus fits but ever since other jewish leaders prevent their children from knowing this. And other false messiahs have come and gone.

There ARE hebrew christians you know.

 

[Douggg]

You're faking it. Colons are not conjunctions, and an "and" after a colon does not make it a conjunction. Anything after a colon is an appositive. It cannot be an independent clause. It has to be a subordinate clause.

No one is saying a colon is a conjunction. The word "and" is the conjunction at the start of each of the independent clauses, in the text of Daniel 9:26.

copy and paste definition of a colon:

The colon is a punctuation mark consisting of two equally sized dots centered on the same vertical line. A colon precedes an explanation, or an enumeration or list.

1. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: (<=colon)

Following the colon in clause 1 is the list of things that happen in verse 26 after the messiah is cutoff. The list of those things are:

2. and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;(<=semi-colon)

3. and the end thereof [of the seventy weeks] shall be with a flood, (<=comma)

4. and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Colons, semi-colons, commas are punctuation marks that separate.

In the list above, following the colon in the first independent clause, each item is separated from the other. The first item in the list, clause 2, is followed by a semi-colon which separates it from clause 3. Clause 3 in turn is separated from clause 4 by a comma.
___________________________________________________________
Clause 2 in the list is followed by a semi-colon and not a comma, because the contents of clause 2, the destruction the temple and city (70 AD) are closer in historical time following the messiah cutoff (33 AD) - but more distant (year wise) from the contents of clause 3 and 4 (which are end times).

3. and the end thereof [of the seventy weeks] shall be with a flood,

4. and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Clauses 3 and 4, beginning "with the end thereof" (of the seventy weeks) are with a flood - in other words, the end time events will happen quickly when they start.

Once the end time events start to end the seventy weeks, there will be wars and abominations (the abomination of transgression in Daniel 8 and the abomination of desolation in Daniel 12). The "unto the end of the war" is talking about the 70 weeks culminating with the war of Armageddon and the Return of Jesus in Revelation 19.

 

[BABerean2]

There ARE hebrew christians you know.

You are correct, but some have to ignore this fact in order to make their Two Peoples of God doctrine work.

You will often hear them talk about "the Gentile Church" as if the Church today does not contain any Jewish believers.

They try to claim that all of the Jews were blinded, based on Romans chapter 11, instead of seeing that "blinded in part" means that some of them were blinded as to who the Messiah was and some of them were like the Apostle Paul and were not blinded.
Romans 11:1

Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

We should say that those promoting modern Dispensational Theology or any aspect of the doctrine are "blinded in part", because somehow they are able to ignore the scripture which disproves their doctrine.


Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Even when we underline, color-code, and enlarge the text, somehow they are still "blinded in part"...
.

 

[Douggg]

They are looking for their messiah and only Jesus fits but ever since other jewish leaders prevent their children from knowing this. And other false messiahs have come and gone.

There ARE hebrew christians you know.

Of course there are hebrew Christians. But most jews reject that Jesus is the messiah. Daniel 9 the seventy weeks are not finished until the Jews, all of them of the end times generation, embrace Jesus as the messiah. But in order for that to happen, Israel must go through the time of hard knocks of the Antichrist.

 

[Douggg]

For the last time, the first clause ends with a colon meaning what follows is in apposition to it. The clause that follows the main clause is going into details of the "Mess--h being cut off." It is explaining in more details how the Mess--h is cut off. That's what the colon means. The semicolon is used because the 3rd clause is a compound appositive, compounded with clause 2.

That's ridiculous. Or maybe I should say "you are faking it".

The colon signifies a 'list" of things that take place after the messiah is cutoff.

The destruction of the temple and city, by the people of the prince who shall come, happened in 70 AD - 40 years after the messiah was cut-off. It is not details of how the Messiah was cutoff - being 40 years after the fact.

 

[Douggg]

You're faking it. Colons are not conjunctions, and an "and" after a colon does not make it a conjunction. Anything after a colon is an appositive. It cannot be an independent clause. It has to be a subordinate clause.

They are independent clauses because each is preceded by the conjunction "and". Each of those clauses, if the "and" were removed, could be written as an independent sentence and still make sense.

Here, I will remove the "and" and make each independent clause a sentence with only the "and" removed.

After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.

The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

The end thereof [of the seventy weeks] shall be with a flood.

Unto the end of the war [of Armageddon] desolations are determined.

You are faking it again. It could have been a but, colons are not conjunctions. Anything after a colon is an appositive, a subordinate clause. It could never be an independent clause. The colon dictates that in grammar. You can't just ignore the colon because it's followed by an "and".

The colon is not ignored, but the correct application is that a colon is used to denote a list. Following the messiah cutoff - colon - is the list of things that will happen. Here is the list:

the destruction of the temple and city (70 AD).
the end of the 70 weeks with a flood (of end times events- Matthew 24:39 ).
the end of the war (the war of Armageddon - end times) preceded by end times abominations.

 

[precepts]

No one is saying a colon is a conjunction. The word "and" is the conjunction at the start of each of the independent clauses, in the text of Daniel 9:26.

copy and paste definition of a colon:

The colon is a punctuation mark consisting of two equally sized dots centered on the same vertical line. A colon precedes an explanation, or an enumeration or list.

1. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: (<=colon)

Following the colon in clause 1 is the list of things that happen in verse 26 after the messiah is cutoff. The list of those things are:

2. and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;(<=semi-colon)

3. and the end thereof [of the seventy weeks] shall be with a flood, (<=comma)

4. and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Colons, semi-colons, commas are punctuation marks that separate.

In the list above, following the colon in the first independent clause, each item is separated from the other. The first item in the list, clause 2, is followed by a semi-colon which separates it from clause 3. Clause 3 in turn is separated from clause 4 by a comma.
___________________________________________________________
Clause 2 in the list is followed by a semi-colon and not a comma, because the contents of clause 2, the destruction the temple and city (70 AD) are closer in historical time following the messiah cutoff (33 AD) - but more distant (year wise) from the contents of clause 3 and 4 (which are end times).

3. and the end thereof [of the seventy weeks] shall be with a flood,

4. and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Clauses 3 and 4, beginning "with the end thereof" (of the seventy weeks) are with a flood - in other words, the end time events will happen quickly when they start.

Once the end time events start to end the seventy weeks, there will be wars and abominations (the abomination of transgression in Daniel 8 and the abomination of desolation in Daniel 12). The "unto the end of the war" is talking about the 70 weeks culminating with the war of Armageddon and the Return of Jesus in Revelation 19.

You're finally admitting that what follows the colon are appositives, so how now can the antecedent of the "he" in the next verse be the "prince" if the "prince' is in an appositive clause that's subordinate and the "he" is in a main clause?

The antecedent of a pronoun in a main clause can never be in a subordinate clause because the context of the conversation isn't about the appositive. The appositive is only about it's main clause. The context/conversation is about the main clauses, which would be like changing the subject or context.

The "he" would have to be attached to the subordinate clause in order for the "prince" to be it's antecedent, or you will be changing the subject, which you are.

Plus you're now you're claiming:

3. and the end thereof [of the seventy weeks] shall be with a flood, (<=comma),

which is incorrect since everything, as you yourself explained earlier, is a list/appositive of clause 1, meaning "the end thereof" is referring to the end of the Mess--h being cut off, not the seventy weeks, which again is the middle of the 7yr week when the Mess--h is cut off, not the 70th week.

 

[precepts]

That's ridiculous. Or maybe I should say "you are faking it".

The colon signifies a 'list" of things that take place after the messiah is cutoff.

A list that you identified as 3 clauses, contradicting you saying colons do not:


"In English grammar, an appositive is a noun, noun phrase, or series of nouns placed next to another word or phrase to identify or rename it. an example would be (made up by me) ... There goes Billy, the class president. In this case, "the class president" is the appositive to Billy.

....an appositive does not apply to clauses. A clause has a subject and verb. A phrase does not. "

Your words! And, yes, there are appositive phrases and clauses.

The destruction of the temple and city, by the people of the prince who shall come, happened in 70 AD - 40 years after the messiah was cut-off. It is not details of how the Messiah was cutoff - being 40 years after the fact.

You are not that naive!

 

[precepts]

They are independent clauses because each is preceded by the conjunction "and". Each of those clauses, if the "and" were removed, could be written as an independent sentence and still make sense.

Here, I will remove the "and" and make each independent clause a sentence with only the "and" removed.

After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.

The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

The end thereof [of the seventy weeks] shall be with a flood.

Unto the end of the war [of Armageddon] desolations are determined.

It is the colon that tells you they are modifying the main clause as an apposition. Without the colon, they would be describing a different event, but it's the colon that dictates that these are the events of greater detail on the Mess--h's being cut off.

The colon is not ignored, but the correct application is that a colon is used to denote a list. Following the messiah cutoff - colon - is the list of things that will happen. Here is the list:

the destruction of the temple and city (70 AD).
the end of the 70 weeks with a flood (of end times events).
the end of the war (the war of Armageddon - end times) preceded by end times abominations.

This is exactly why this doctrine is worldwide, and it's not because we are stupid either.

490 yrs from Cyrus' decree in 539 bc is not any year a.d., and you know this.

Your interpretations are literal and lack wisdom from a wise God who speaks in parables.

 

[Douggg]

You're finally admitting that what follows the colon are appositives, so how now can the antecedent of the "he" in the next verse be the "prince" if the "prince' is in an appositive clause that's subordinate and the "he" is in a main clause?

please don't misrepresent me. I wrote the colon following the independent clause of the messiah cutoff, denotes a list - not an appositive.

The list is the things that will happen after the messiah is cutoff. The destruction of the temple and city, 70 AD. And the end of the 70 weeks, and the war of Armageddon, and transgression of desolation and abomination of desolation - all end times.

The antecedent of a pronoun in a main clause can never be in a subordinate clause because the context of the conversation isn't about the appositive. The appositive is only about it's main clause. The context/conversation is about the main clauses, which would be like changing the subject or context.

The are independent clauses because they are joined together by an "and" in the front of each clause - making the 4 independent clauses into a compound sentence.

Of the independent clauses, in their independent sentence form, the he in verse 27 is closest to the prince who shall come in the sentence. Here it is...

The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:

The "he" would have to be attached to the subordinate clause in order for the "prince" to be it's antecedent, or you will be changing the subject, which you are.

Again, putting the clauses into their independent sentence form.....

The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:

Plus you're now you're claiming:

3. and the end thereof [of the seventy weeks] shall be with a flood, (<=comma),

which is incorrect since everything, as you yourself explained earlier, is a list/appositive of clause 1, meaning "the end thereof" is referring to the end of the Mess--h being cut off, not the seventy weeks, which again is the middle of the 7yr week when the Mess--h is cut off, not the 70th week.

I have not been saying anything about appositives - you have. The messiah was cutoff at the end of 69 weeks, not seventy weeks, nor 69 1/2 weeks.

The end thereof [of the seventy weeks] shall be with a flood. A flood is used in Matthew 24 of how fast the end times events will take place once they begin. Jesus is describing what it will be like in those days when he returns....

37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

 

[Douggg]

A list that you identified as 3 clauses, contradicting you saying colons do not:

"In English grammar, an appositive is a noun, noun phrase, or series of nouns placed next to another word or phrase to identify or rename it. an example would be (made up by me) ... There goes Billy, the class president. In this case, "the class president" is the appositive to Billy.

....an appositive does not apply to clauses. A clause has a subject and verb. A phrase does not. "

Your words!


You are not that naive!

I am not saying there are any appositives in Daniel 9:26 - you are. Daniel 9:26 is a compound sentence made up of four independent clauses joined by the conjunction "and" in front of each clause.

I copied and pasted the definition of an appositive. Do you see the term "clause" (whether subordinate or independent) anywhere in this definition?

"In English grammar, an appositive is a noun, noun phrase, or series of nouns placed next to another word or phrase to identify or rename it.

Where do you see any noun, noun phrase, or series of nouns placed next to the Messiah in the clause - And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: ? No, there is not an appositive there.

Contrastingly, allow me to give you an example of what would be an appositive...

We worship Jesus, our Lord and Savior. "our Lord and Savior" is an appositive because it is a series (two) of nouns placed next to Jesus which identifies Jesus as our Lord And Savior.

Here is another example of an appositive...

Jesus, Lord of Lord and King of Kings, is coming to judge the quick and the dead and to reward them who love Him.

Another example - same sentence, slightly repackaged. There is still an appositive.

The Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Jesus, is coming to judge the quick and the dead and to reward them who love Him.

 

[precepts]

please don't misrepresent me. I wrote the colon following the independent clause of the messiah cutoff, denotes a list - not an appositive.

I am not misrepresenting you. You identified the 3 things in that list to be "clauses". They are appositive clauses.

The list is the things that will happen after the messiah is cutoff. The destruction of the temple and city, 70 AD. And the end of the 70 weeks, and the war of Armageddon, and transgression of desolation and abomination of desolation - all end times.

That is your false interpretation because you don't want to admit the facts and read the entire article on the function of the colon. The colon followed by a clause represents and appositive clause. It is going into greater details on what is said in the main clause, which is you reading comprehension error. What I've been trying to tell you from the get go.

The are independent clauses because they are joined together by an "and" in the front of each clause - making the 4 independent clauses into a compound sentence.

The independent clauses, in their independent sentence form, the he in verse 27 is closest to the prince who shall come in the sentence.

The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:

The Mess--h confirming the covenant for one week isn't in context with the main clause's Mess--h being cut off?

Again, putting the clauses into their independent sentence form.....

The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:

It is because you are not recognizing the function of the colon why you're misinterpreting the facts. Only the clause before the colon and the "he shall confirm the covenant clause are main clauses, which is the context of the conversation, not the "prince that should come". Those subordinate clause are greater details of the Mess--h's being cut off, what causes his cutting off, whether in the 69th week or in the middle of the 7yrs week.

I have not been saying anything about appositives - you have. The messiah was cutoff at the end of 69 weeks, not seventy weeks. The end thereof [of the seventy weeks] is with a flood. A flood is used in Matthew 24 of how fast the end times events will take place once they begin. Jesus is describing what it will be like in those days when he returns....

37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

You have to start from the floor up, and your stumbling block is not reading the entire article on the function of a colon which includes appositive clauses.

 

[precepts]

I am not saying there are any appositives in Daniel 9:26 - you are. Daniel 9:26 is a compound sentence made up of four independent clauses joined by the conjunction "and" in front of each clause.

I copied and pasted the definition of an appositive. Do you see the term "clause" (whether subordinate or independent) anywhere in this definition?

"In English grammar, an appositive is a noun, noun phrase, or series of nouns placed next to another word or phrase to identify or rename it.

That is an appositive. An appositive phrase or clause works in the same fashion as the appositive noun and is one of the functions of the colon.

Read thru the entire article on the function of the colon and see that that same list you're talking about includes "appositive phrases and clauses".

 

[Douggg]

That is an appositive. An appositive phrase of clause works in the same fashion as the appositive noun and is one of the functions of the colon.

"phrase of clause"? no, such an animal.

A phrase is not a clause - because it does not contain a subject and verb. And example of a phrase, in this case a prepositional phrase is...

In the days of these ten kings, shall the God of heaven setup and everlasting kingdom.

In the same sentence, an example of an adverb phrase supported by a prepositional phrase, saying "when" is....

In the days of these ten kings, shall the God of heaven setup and everlasting kingdom.

 

[Douggg]

I am not misrepresenting you. You identified the 3 things in that list to be "clauses". They are appositive clauses.

But I am not saying they are "appositive clauses". That's what I meant by you misrepresenting me, saying I finally admitting your stance which I did not. In the definition of an appositive, "clauses" is not in the definition.

 

[Douggg]

That is your false interpretation because you don't want to admit the facts and read the entire article on the function of the colon. The colon followed by a clause represents and appositive clause. It is going into greater details on what is said in the main clause, which is you reading comprehension error. What I've been trying to tell you from the get go.

I gave you the definition of an appositive. The definition does not include clauses.

Here is the definition again..."In English grammar, an appositive is a noun, noun phrase, or series of nouns placed next to another word or phrase to identify or rename it.