7 year peace treaty, what 7 year peace treaty?

[Douggg]

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

Copy and paste definition:

A subordinate clause is a group of words that has both a subject and a verb but ( unlike an independent clause) cannot stand alone as a sentence.

The messiah being cutoff is one of four independent clauses (independent because each can stand alone as a sentence), joined together with the conjunction "and" in front of each clause to make up a compound sentence, Daniel 9:26.

The messiah is cutoff. Then colon, a list of things that happen following the messiah cutoff - the 70 AD event, and then the end times events. The confirmation of the covenant for 7 years is in verse 27 is end times. In 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:

 

[Douggg]

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.

There are no subordinate clauses in Daniel 9:26 - because each clause can stand alone as it's own sentence.

The function of the colon in this verse is to provide a list of things that happen after the messiah is cutoff. Surely you can see that the destruction of the temple and city took place 40 years after the messiah was cutoff ?

 

[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.

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".

I asked you, do you see the term "clause" anywhere in the definition of an appositive?

"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.

 

[BABerean2]

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.

Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.


Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,


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.
.

 

[precepts]

"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.

You're smart enough to know it was a typo based on the context. I meant "phrase or clause".

 

[precepts]

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.

Like I said, go and read the entire article. Appositive phrases and clauses are grammatical facts.

You can't be that naive to have read about the use of the colon for listing, etc, and not know about the appositive phrase and clause uses. You're just being evasive.

You can run but you can't hide.

 

[precepts]

I asked you, do you see the term "clause" anywhere in the definition of an appositive?

"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.

And I told you finish reading the article on the uses of a colon and you will see it's used before an "appositive phrase or clause". Or better yet, google "appositive clause" and see what you get.

You lose.

 

[precepts]

Copy and paste definition:

A subordinate clause is a group of words that has both a subject and a verb but ( unlike an independent clause) cannot stand alone as a sentence.

The messiah being cutoff is one of four independent clauses (independent because each can stand alone as a sentence), joined together with the conjunction "and" in front of each clause to make up a compound sentence, Daniel 9:26.

The messiah is cutoff. Then colon, a list of things that happen following the messiah cutoff - the 70 AD event, and then the end times events. The confirmation of the covenant for 7 years is in verse 27 is end times. In 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:

You are treating the verses as if the colon doesn't exist. It is the colon that dictates the remaining clauses to be appositive clauses and not independent or main clauses. IT IS NOT A CONJUNCTION. THEY ARE NOT 4 INDEPENDENT CLAUSES JOINED BY CONJUNCTIONS BECAUSE A COLON IS NOT A CONJUNCTION.

 

[precepts]

There are no subordinate clauses in Daniel 9:26 - because each clause can stand alone as it's own sentence.

They are subordinate because of the colon's use as an appositive the same way an appositive noun is used. An appositive noun is not an independent phrase.

The function of the colon in this verse is to provide a list of things that happen after the messiah is cutoff. Surely you can see that the destruction of the temple and city took place 40 years after the messiah was cutoff ?

The colon is not used to show what happens after an event. That is your foolish explanation of the rule of a list after a colon, which is not a list but an appositive phrase or clause.

 

[Douggg]

They are subordinate because of the colon's use as an appositive the same way an appositive noun is used. An appositive noun is not an independent phrase.

The clauses in Daniel 9:26 are not subordinate because each clause can be a stand alone sentence. The clauses in Daniel 9:26 are independent clauses. I have already shown that each can be made a stand alone sentence simply by removing the conjunction "and" in front of each clause.

The colon is not used to show what happens after an event. That is your foolish explanation of the rule of a list after a colon, which is not a list but an appositive phrase or clause.

The colon can be used to denote a list. In the particular case of Daniel 9:26, the list is a list of events that take place after the messiah is cutoff.

 

[Douggg]

And I told you finish reading the article on the uses of a colon and you will see it's used before an "appositive phrase or clause". Or better yet, google "appositive clause" and see what you get.

You lose.

From google. The articles I found are talking about clauses that act as nouns. In each of these examples the noun clause represents "the what". The problem is what? ; the solution is what? ; the answer is what? ; my decision is what? ; his choice is what? (each of these noun clauses in italics are subordinate clauses because they can not be stand alone sentences - unlike Daniel 9:26, which the clauses in that verse are independent because they can each be stand alone sentences.)

• The problem, that you did not pick up the packages, delays the entire production schedule.
• I think the solution, that he hired a replacement, was the best course of action at the time.
• The answer from the company, that we buy a new table, angers me.
• My decision, for you to leave the day after us, stands.
• His choice, for her to bring the kids the week after, seems logical.
• Your idea, for Olive to make more pickles, appears ill-conceived.

In each of those examples, the noun clause (the what) is next to word which it is an appositive for. Which meets the definition of an appositive because it is next the word it is an appositive for, and because it identifies what each word is.

In the first example, the problem is identified as "that you did not pick up the packages"

 

[Douggg]

You are treating the verses as if the colon doesn't exist. It is the colon that dictates the remaining clauses to be appositive clauses and not independent or main clauses. IT IS NOT A CONJUNCTION. THEY ARE NOT 4 INDEPENDENT CLAUSES JOINED BY CONJUNCTIONS BECAUSE A COLON IS NOT A CONJUNCTION.

Why do you keep saying that when I keep saying to you the colon in Daniel 9:26 denotes a list of things that happen after Messiah is cutoff ?

You are the one who doesn't get that the clauses in that verse are independent because they can stand alone as independent sentences and make sense.

Okay, you want to use big letters at me....I can make my whole post in big letters if you want. A colon is a punctuation mark, not a conjunction.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT A COLON IS A CONJUNCTION - FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME !!!!

The conjunction in the text is the word "and" in front of each clause.

I will highlight the word "and" again.

1. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

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

3. and the end thereof shall be with a flood,

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

 

[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.

The and's are not conjunctions because they follow the colon. The and's are conjunctions because they are in front of each independent clause.

The independent clauses in Daniel 9:26 make up a list of things (as identified in each of the independent clauses) that follow the messiah cutoff. The colon denotes that list.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: (<=colon indicating a list following)

Now the list:
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.

Daniel 9:26 is a compound sentence of independent clauses, three of which make up a list following the first independent clause.

 

[Douggg]

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.

What are you talking about - details of the Messiah cutoff? The temple and city were destroyed 40 years after Jesus was crucified. Can't you see that? The destruction of the temple and city did not cause the Messiah to be cutoff.

 

[BABerean2]

What are you talking about - details of the Messiah cutoff? The temple and city were destroyed 40 years after Jesus was crucified. Can't you see that? The destruction of the temple and city did not cause the Messiah to be cutoff.

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
..........................................

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:


Dan 9:27 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.


Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

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.


Who Confirmed The Covenant?
http://christianmediaresearch.com/node/1023

 

[precepts]

The clauses in Daniel 9:26 are not subordinate because each clause can be a stand alone sentence. The clauses in Daniel 9:26 are independent clauses. I have already shown that each can be made a stand alone sentence simply by removing the conjunction "and" in front of each clause.

My Webster 1989 dictionary list one of the functions of a colon as use to introduce an appositive phrase or clause. I haven't found that on the internet, but here are some links to two sites that emphasize what I'm trying to explain:

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000100.htm - Says Appositives can be words, phrases, or clauses.

http://sana.aalto.fi/awe/punctuation/colons/2colon.html - (Rule 2) Emphasizes the use of a colon between 'independent clauses' if the second summarizes, explains or amplifies the first as I have been trying to explain to you about the role of the clauses after the colon in Dan 9:26, not being about what follows the Mess--h being cut off, but are "summarizing, amplifying, and explaining" the Mess--h's cutting off.

If you ignore the function of the colon's emphasis as an introduction to an appositive clause, you misinterpret the following clauses as independent constructions when they aren't. They are appositives of the main clause, the reason why the colon is used.

The colon can be used to denote a list. In the particular case of Daniel 9:26, the list is a list of events that take place after the messiah is cutoff.

Not after, it's an appositive clause. It is going into greater detail of the cutting off.

The cutting off is done by the "prince" and his people when they harm the sanctuary, proving it's not the Mess--h that's physically being cut off but the covenant that was being confirmed that's physically cut off by the "prince" and his people.

 

[precepts]

From google. The articles I found are talking about clauses that act as nouns. In each of these examples the noun clause represents "the what". The problem is what? ; the solution is what? ; the answer is what? ; my decision is what? ; his choice is what? (each of these noun clauses in italics are subordinate clauses because they can not be stand alone sentences - unlike Daniel 9:26, which the clauses in that verse are independent because they can each be stand alone sentences.)

• The problem, that you did not pick up the packages, delays the entire production schedule.
• I think the solution, that he hired a replacement, was the best course of action at the time.
• The answer from the company, that we buy a new table, angers me.
• My decision, for you to leave the day after us, stands.
• His choice, for her to bring the kids the week after, seems logical.
• Your idea, for Olive to make more pickles, appears ill-conceived.

In each of those examples, the noun clause (the what) is next to word which it is an appositive for. Which meets the definition of an appositive because it is next the word it is an appositive for, and because it identifies what each word is.

In the first example, the problem is identified as "that you did not pick up the packages"

That's why I told you I didn't find anything that supported what I claimed on the internet but provided you with the two links that do support the fact of an appositive clause.

 

[precepts]

Why do you keep saying that when I keep saying to you the colon in Daniel 9:26 denotes a list of things that happen after Messiah is cutoff ?

Because it does not. If it did, there would be no need for the "colon".

You are the one who doesn't get that the clauses in that verse are independent because they can stand alone as independent sentences and make sense.

But it doesn't because it's not about what happens after the main clause, but an appositive of the main clause, about what happens "during" the cutting off! That's why the colon is used.

Okay, you want to use big letters at me....I can make my whole post in big letters if you want. A colon is a punctuation mark, not a conjunction.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT A COLON IS A CONJUNCTION - FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME !!!!

The conjunction in the text is the word "and" in front of each clause.

I will highlight the word "and" again.

This is what you're not getting. "And" can never be a "conjunction" because of the colon! You keep emphasizing the conjunction "and" but it's not a conjunction because of the colon. If there was no colon, then "and" would have been a conjunction, but it's not. It's used as a subordinate conjunction.

1. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

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

3. and the end thereof shall be with a flood,

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

It's going into more details of the cutting off: the prince shall come, the flood (is the prince), and desolations after (prince's) war.
http://sana.aalto.fi/awe/punctuation/colons/2colon.html
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000100.htm

 

[Douggg]

Not after, it's an appositive clause. It is going into greater detail of the cutting off.

The cutting off is done by the "prince" and his people when they harm the sanctuary, proving it's not the Mess--h that's physically being cut off but the covenant that was being confirmed that's physically cut off by the "prince" and his people.

The destruction of the temple and city happened 40 years after Jesus being crucified. The destruction of the temple and city was not the reason Jesus was crucified, nor impacted the crucifixion.

And the people (the Romans), the subject of that clause, does not identify Jesus or rename him as a Roman. Which an apoositive is supposed it suppose to identify or rename the word it refers to. do.

The people who destroyed the temple and city, for the most part were not even alive at the time Jesus was crucified. The oldest of the soldiers were in their 50's. So take away 40 years, they would have been ten years old when Jesus was crucified.

The people who destroyed the temple and the city is also not an appositive because they were Romans, or other nationalities, not Jewish. Jesus is identified as a Jew in the gospels.

And Jesus was not the prince who shall come because he is not of the Romans or other nationalities (acting on behalf of the Romans) who destroyed the temple and city.

 

[precepts]

The and's are not conjunctions because they follow the colon. The and's are conjunctions because they are in front of each independent clause.

They are "subordinate conjunctions".

The independent clauses in Daniel 9:26 make up a list of things (as identified in each of the independent clauses) that follow the messiah cutoff. The colon denotes that list.

If they did, there would be no need for the colon. The colon emphasizes them to be appositives, events that happen during the cutting off.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: (<=colon indicating a list following)

Now the list:
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.

They are Appositive clauses. The topic/subject of the 70wks message from Dan 9:25-27 is the Mess--h. The " prince" in only part of the appositive clause modify Dan 9:26's main clause.

Daniel 9:26 is a compound sentence of independent clauses, three of which make up a list following the first independent clause.

Which means it is not a compound sentence. Compound sentences are made up of more than one main clause joined by a conjunction, a comma and a conjunction, or a semicolon. A colon is not a conjunction; therefore, the clause following the colon are not main clauses. They are subordinate clauses joined by subordinate conjunctions. In order for verse 26 to be a compound sentence, the colon would have had to have been omitted. The context from Dan 9:25-27, the main clauses, is Christ. The "prince" isn't the topic, isn't the main clause.