7 year peace treaty, what 7 year peace treaty?

[Douggg]

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.

The word "and" by its definition is a conjunction. Just as the word "is" is a verb. And the word "he" is a pronoun.

The only way "and" can be said to be a noun, if it is used in a sentence as the subject of the sentence or direct object in very specialized cases such as....

And is a word. Is is a word. And has three letters. And is a part of speech. And is easy to spell. And is a conjunction.

 

[BABerean2]

And is a word. Is is a word. And has three letters. And is a part of speech. And is easy to spell. And is a conjunction.

You sound like former president Bill Clinton arguing over what the meaning of the word "is", is...


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.
.

 

[precepts]

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.

We've been thru this before. You are misinterpreting the facts.

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 appositive clause, as the links I provide shows, "summarizes, amplifies, and explains" the clause that precedes the colon. You're still stuck on the appositive noun.

You're also misinterpreting the "people" to be the Romans when they're not. The AOD - though not what the verse is talking about - is done by the Greek little horn in Dan 8:9-12 and 11:30-31.

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.

Again you're misinterpreting the text. It does not say the temple and city in Dan 9:26. It says the "sanctuary," which is specifically noted as being repaired by Nehem--h when he repaired the wall in the "troublous times" after the sixty and two weeks.

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.

You are adding faulty interpretations. The text does not say the people were the Romans. You are wrongly assuming so because you are wrongly assuming the Mess--h's cutting off to be physical, hence 33 a.d.

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.

I never said he was. I said he is the antecedent of the "he" in vs. 27.

 

[Douggg]

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.

The and's in front of each of the 3 independent clauses give information about what happens after the messiah is cutoff. The 3 independent clauses are not appositives as none of them identify the messiah, nor rename the messiah.

Daniel 9:26 starts off with an independent clause "and". Because it follows verse 25, which is addressing arrival of the messiah. And the first independent clause is about the messiah. The colon after the messiah being cutoff independent clause denotes a list about what happen after the messiah is cutoff and the completion of the 70 weeks.

25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

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

The "and" preceding the messiah cutoff independent clause is a conjunction as well. The definition of the word "and" is that it is a conjunction. A conjunction in some cases can begin a sentence. In this case, the conjunction "and" begins the sentence, Daniel 9:26.

 

[precepts]

The word "and" by its definition is a conjunction. Just as the word "is" is a verb. And the word "he" is a pronoun.

The only way "and" can be said to be a noun, if it is used in a sentence as the subject of the sentence or direct object in very specialized cases such as....

And is a word. Is is a word. And has three letters. And is a part of speech. And is easy to spell. And is a conjunction.

You're cracking up! The "ands" used in the three clauses are "subordinate conjunctions," not conjunctions.

 

[Douggg]

You sound like former president Bill Clinton arguing over what the meaning of the word "is", is...


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.
.

I was just using that particular sentence as an example of how any word - regardless of its normal part of speech, verb, pronoun, conjunction, adverb, adjective, infinitive - can be made a noun by making it the subject of a sentence.

 

[Douggg]

We've been thru this before. You are misinterpreting the facts.

Well, when do you think the temple was destroyed? I am going by the historical facts. The sanctuary is that central building to the Temple complex. The sanctuary contains the holy room and the holy of Holies room.

 

[precepts]

The and's in front of each of the 3 independent clauses give information about what happens after the messiah is cutoff. The 3 independent clauses are not appositives as none of them identify the messiah, nor rename the messiah.

And appositive clause, for the umpteenth time, does not modify a noun. It modifies the main clause.

Daniel 9:26 starts off with an independent clause "and". Because it follows verse 25, which is addressing arrival of the messiah. And the first independent clause is about the messiah. The colon after the messiah being cutoff independent clause denotes a list about what happen after the messiah is cutoff and the completion of the 70 weeks.

Verse 26 starts off with an "and" but it's not preceded by a "colon". That's the difference between it and the clauses that come after the colon.

25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

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

The "and" preceding the messiah cutoff independent clause is a conjunction as well. The definition of the word "and" is that it is a conjunction. A conjunction in some cases can begin a sentence. In this case, the conjunction "and" begins the sentence, Daniel 9:26.

They are subordinate conjunctions. The topic of the 70wks from vs 25-27 is the Mess--h, his anointing, his cutting off, and his desolation of the covenant he confirmed because of the overspreading of abominations. The "prince" is not the topic.

 

[precepts]

Well, when do you think the temple was destroyed? I am going by the historical facts. The sanctuary is that central building to the Temple complex. The sanctuary contains the holy room and the holy of Holies room.

The sanctuary is not the temple. The sanctuary is the outer chambers that was damaged by the Egyptian-Greek revolt that damaged the rebuilt walls that Nehem--h had to repair.

You're claiming historical facts but ignoring the fact Cyrus' 539 bc decree does not equate to A.D. if you calculate the 70wks to 490yrs?

 

[Douggg]

They are "subordinate conjunctions".

Subordinating conjunctions
A subordinating conjunction is a word that introduces an adverb clause. Here are some subordinating conjunctions:

after
although
as
as soon as
because
before
by the time
even if
even though
every time
if
in case
in the event that
just in case
now that
once
only if
since
since
the first time
though
unless
until
when
whenever
whereas
whether or not
while
while

 

[Douggg]

The sanctuary is not the temple. The sanctuary is the outer chambers that was damaged by the Egyptian-Greek revolt that damaged the rebuilt walls that Nehem--h had to repair.

You're claiming historical facts but ignoring the fact Cyrus' 539 bc decree does not equate to A.D. if you calculate the 70wks to 490yrs?

Daniel 9:26 is not talking about the 1st temple destruction. The destruction of the temple (sanctuary) and city takes place after the messiah has been cutoff.

The 70 weeks count don't even begin until near the end of the Babylonian captivity.

 

[Douggg]

-

You are adding faulty interpretations. The text does not say the people were the Romans. You are wrongly assuming so because you are wrongly assuming the Mess--h's cutting off to be physical, hence 33 a.d.

What? Jesus did not die on the cross. That's not his being cutoff?

 

[Douggg]

Verse 26 starts off with an "and" but it's not preceded by a "colon". That's the difference between it and the clauses that come after the colon.

The "and" at the start of verse 26 does two things: (1) it connects verse 26 the sentence to verse 25 (2) it connects the messiah to the messiah in verse 25.

The word "and" is a conjunction as its definition. A subordinating conjunction introduces an adverb clause. There are no adverb clauses in Daniel 9:26.

Following the colon are three independent noun clauses - each an item in a list of things that happen after the messiah is cutoff.

 

[BABerean2]

I was just using that particular sentence as an example of how any word - regardless of its normal part of speech, verb, pronoun, conjunction, adverb, adjective, infinitive - can be made a noun by making it the subject of a sentence.

It is also an example of how the New Covenant already foretold in Jeremiah 31:31-34 can be changed into a treaty broken by an antichrist not in the text, by adding a manmade "gap", not mentioned by the angel Gabriel...


Daniel 9:27 1599 Geneva Bible


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.


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

 

[Douggg]

It is also an example of how the New Covenant already foretold in Jeremiah 31:31-34 can be changed into a treaty broken by an antichrist not in the text, by adding a manmade "gap", not mentioned by the angel Gabriel...


Daniel 9:27 1599 Geneva Bible


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.


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

There is no man-made gap.

It is not confirmed - past tense - but shall confirm the covenant for one week, the last week of the 70 weeks, future tense. It is the prince who shall come. The person who becomes the Antichrist.

You've got in Revelation and Daniel 7 and 12, periods of time - the 1260 days and the 1290 days, and the 1335th day, and the time, times, half that all indicate that the 7 years are still outstanding. And there are the crowns on the heads of the beast in Revelation 12, which that chapter contains the 7 years - indicating the little horn has come to power.

And in Revelation 13, with 42 months left, the midst of the week, there are no crowns on the heads - because the little horn person has been slain, ending the prophecy of the 7 kings of Revelation 17.

All of those things when put together shows that the 7 years are still outstanding. And on top of that, there is in the text of Deuteronomy 31:9-13, a requirement to confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant on the 7 year schmita cycle.

 

[Goodbook]

There is no gap, thats a fallacy, I dont know why some people insist there is one, just so they can say 'we living in end times' when Paul was living in the end times! It was the end times for to make an end to the old covenant. The new covenant supercedes the old, i.e. It is a better one. That doesnt mean the old covenant is lost, its reconfirmed and enlarged to include gentiles..i.e all mankind!

Jesus blood makes the new covenant. There are no more sacrifices as there is no more temple, we believers are the living temples. I think people get confused between the first resurrection and the second. Also. That jewish people carry on their customs is because they have cultural traditions but it doesnt mean ALL of them dont believe in Jesus as their Messiah. Just because many have now returned to their homeland doesnt mean that they are going to make a peace treaty with the anti christ. That is a ridicuolus notion. As if any anti christ has the ability to get people to make peace treaties anyway.

I dont know how anyone can read all this political manuevering into aomething thats not going to happen becuase of some bible misinterpretation of a covenant that has already happened!

If you are a christian you know that Jesus has confirmed the new covenant with his blood! Thats why we take the Lords supper! To remember what He did!!!!!

 

[Douggg]

There is no gap, thats a fallacy, I dont know why some people insist there is one, just so they can say 'we living in end times' when Paul was living in the end times! It was the end times for to make an end to the old covenant. The new covenant supercedes the old, i.e. It is a better one. That doesnt mean the old covenant is lost, its reconfirmed and enlarged to include gentiles..i.e all mankind!

Jesus blood makes the new covenant. There are no more sacrifices as there is no more temple, we believers are the living temples. I think people get confused between the first resurrection and the second. Also. That jewish people carry on their customs is because they have cultural traditions but it doesnt mean ALL of them dont believe in Jesus as their Messiah. Just because many have now returned to their homeland doesnt mean that they are going to make a peace treaty with the anti christ. That is a ridicuolus notion. As if any anti christ has the ability to get people to make peace treaties anyway.

Goodbook, do you know what the word Christ means within the tradition of Jewish thought regarding the messiah?

Here is what it means:

Mark 15:32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

The unrependant thief on the cross next to Jesus uttered those words above. Even the unrependant thief understood that Christ in Jewish thought regarding the messiah, means the King of Israel, the promised great king of Israel descended from David specifically - to lead Israel and the world into the messianic era of peace and safety.

btw, the other thief was repentant, and Jesus said would be with him in paradise that day. The two thief's, imo, represent humanity, all of us sinners. Some revile and reject Jesus. Others believe on Jesus like the rependent thief and are saved.

In case precepts is reading this post. Christ the King of Israel is an example of an appositive. "the King of Israel" is the appositive to Christ - that is, it identifies Christ as the King of Israel, and is right next to Christ.

Goodbook, the Antichrist will be an illegimate (Christ) King of Israel, son of David - someone that God does not send to be their king, but comes in his own name.

 

[BABerean2]

All of those things when put together shows that the 7 years are still outstanding. And on top of that, there is in the text of Deuteronomy 31:9-13, a requirement to confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant on the 7 year schmita cycle.

If you continue to ignore Hebrews 8:9 and claim an obsolete covenant, that the Israelites broke, is the covenant in Daniel 9:27...

and then ignore the New Blood Covenant of Christ in an attempt to promote the obsolete, broken, Sinai covenant to make your manmade theory work...


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.

Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

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 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

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,

then you are taking the focus off of the One who wrote the whole Bible.


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
.


.

 

[Douggg]

If you continue to ignore Hebrews 8:9 and claim an obsolete covenant, that the Israelites broke, is the covenant in Daniel 9:27...

The Antichrist is going to ignore Hebrews 8:9 and rile against it and anything that points to Jesus being the messiah, because Judaism rejects everything in the New Testament and Jesus. The covenant that the Jews go by is the Mt. Sinai covenant, and that is the one in the text of the bible which has a requirement to be confirmed on the 7 year schmita cycle.

 

[BABerean2]

The Antichrist is going to ignore Hebrews 8:9 and rile against it and anything that points to Jesus being the messiah, because Judaism rejects everything in the New Testament and Jesus. The covenant that the Jews go by is the Mt. Sinai covenant, and that is the one in the text of the bible which has a requirement to be confirmed on the 7 year schmita cycle.

Now let me get your logic correct...

God's Word plainly says that the Old Sinai Covenant has been made obsolete. Hebrews 8:13

Now, the only way of salvation is the New Blood Covenant of Jesus Christ.

However, since the modern Jews are still holding onto an obsolete covenant that is no longer in effect, somehow this obsolete covenant no longer in effect, is the one in the Bible text which has to be confirmed on a future 7 year schmita cycle.

This has to be one of the greatest conflicts in scripture and logic, in the history of this forum.

When trying to get out of a hole, the first step is to stop digging...
.