7 year peace treaty, what 7 year peace treaty?

[Douggg]

So are you saying the "and" compounds both clauses?

I am saying that the "and" in front of each of the three independent clauses following the lead-in clause of the messiah cutoff, joins all of the independent clauses together when formed as one sentence, verse 9:26.

First to clarify the point. Here are the independent clauses in their sentence form following verse 25.

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.

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.

Now here are the above sentences joined together as one sentence with the and's as a conjunctions.

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.

Because you continue to treat the two sentences as a compound sentence when it's not.

It is a compound sentence because it has independent clauses joined together by conjunctions. What is tripping you up I think is that the colon denotes that the three independent clauses following the messiah cutoff are a list, as well as, separates the independent clauses.

I am not denying "and" is a conjunction. I am denying the fact that with the colon preceding it that it is not a compound sentence.

The colon has no bearing on whether the sentence is a compound sentence or not. It is not just one "and" btw, it is three and's... an "and" for each independent clause following the lead-in clause.

Most often a comma precedes the "and" conjunction between independent clauses of a compound sentence. When stronger emphasis is needed to separate the independent clauses, a semi-colon is used instead of a comma. Occasionally, a colon is used. http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/compoundsent.htm

In this particular sentence, the translators used a colon after the lead-in clause to denote the remaining clauses form a list.

Why do you keep denying the fact that the only clause that can follow a colon is an appositive clause? I already provided you the proof.

Because it is not true. And your opinion is not proof.

Show me where it says the list can consist of independent clauses that are not appositives.

The text itself shows that those independent clauses are not appositives. An appositive identifies or renames the word for which it is an appositive.

Look at verse 26. The messiah is cutoff. Then the clause you are claiming to be an appositive the subject of the first clause doesn't identify Jesus as being the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary. The second clause, the end thereof.... is not a person, so it does not identify Jesus. The third clause, desolation are determined... in not a person, so it does not identify Jesus.

Jesus, our Lord and Savior, we worship. That's an appositive.

There are no appositives anywhere in verse 9:26.

 

[precepts]

I am saying that the "and" in front of each of the three independent clauses following the lead-in clause of the messiah cutoff, joins all of the independent clauses together when formed as one sentence, verse 9:26.

First to clarify the point. Here are the independent clauses in their sentence form following verse 25.

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.

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.

Now here are the above sentences joined together as one sentence with the and's as a conjunctions.

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.

It is a compound sentence because it has independent clauses joined together by conjunctions. What is tripping you up I think is that the colon denotes that the three independent clauses following the messiah cutoff are a list, as well as, separates the independent clauses.

A colon used in a compound sentence is a new for me. I have never heard of it until now, but I still say the clauses after the colon are appositive clauses.

In the definition given from the link you provide, it says:

The colon ( : ) is a mark of punctuation used after a statement (usually an independent clause) that introduces a quotation, an explanation, an example, or a series.
In addition, the colon usually appears after the salutation of a business letter (Dear Professor Legree; between the chapter and verse numbers in a biblical citation (Genesis 1:1); between the title and subtitle of a book or article (Comma Sense: A FUNdamental Guide to Punctuation); and between numbers or groups of numbers in expressions of time (3:00 a.m.) and ratios (1:5).

- My point is 3 of the 4 uses are appositives, so the series must also be an appositive. And from the examples given, none of the examples of the "series" are independent clauses.

The colon has no bearing on whether the sentence is a compound sentence or not. It is not just one "and" btw, it is three and's... an "and" for each independent clause following the lead-in clause.

Most often a comma precedes the "and" conjunction between independent clauses of a compound sentence. When stronger emphasis is needed to separate the independent clauses, a semi-colon is used instead of a comma. Occasionally, a colon is used. http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/compoundsent.htm

In this particular sentence, the translators used a colon after the lead-in clause to denote the remaining clauses form a list.

You are assuming the series, one of the 4 uses given, is the authors intention, which is illogical since the other 3 suggests appositives.

Because it is not true. And your opinion is not proof.

The links I provided did say the appositive clause follows the colon, a fact you had no knowledge of.

The text itself shows that those independent clauses are not appositives. An appositive identifies or renames the word for which it is an appositive.

An appositive clause does not function like the appositive noun. It is a summary, explanation, or an amplifier of the clause before it. The links proved that.

Look at verse 26. The messiah is cutoff. Then the clause you are claiming to be an appositive the subject of the first clause doesn't identify Jesus as being the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary. The second clause, the end thereof.... is not a person, so it does not identify Jesus. The third clause, desolation are determined... in not a person, so it does not identify Jesus.

The appositive clause does not modify the subject of the main clause. It modifies the statement made. It summarizes, explains, amplifies the main clause.

Jesus, our Lord and Savior, we worship. That's an appositive.

There are no appositives anywhere in verse 9:26.

You don't even know what an appositive clause is. And like I said before, the subject of the main clauses from vs 25-27 is Christ. The subject doesn't change between verses.

 

[Luke17:37]

Based on pure logic and the fact that there is no pretrib removal of the Church, because of what we find in Revelation 12:11, the times of the Gentiles ends at Christ's Second Coming.
I agree that there is a "gap" of time between Luke 21:24 and Luke 21:25, based solely on the wording of the text.

Some have changed the word "so", which is an adverb of manner based on the Greek word "houto", into the word "then", which is an adverb of time in Romans 11:26. This completely changes the meaning of the passage. The Apostle Paul had just said the branches broken off could be grafted back into the Olive Tree, through faith in Christ. This is the manner of their salvation.
The Olive Tree is a symbol of the New Covenant Church, made up of Israelites and Gentiles who have a common faith in Christ.

Therefore the covenant in Romans 11:27 is the New Blood Covenant "now" in effect, based at Hebrews 8:6.
It is not waiting on a future fulfillment.
The sins of all people, no matter their bloodline, was taken away at Calvary almost 2,000 years ago.
This is when the deliverer came out of Zion.

All of the Israelites were not blinded, like a herd of sheep with each having only one eye.
Instead, some of the Israelites were blinded as to who the Messiah was and some like Paul (Romans 11:1) were not blinded.
This is the meaning of the phrase "blinded in part".

Some of them "they" were enemies of the Gospel and kept persecuting Paul's efforts to spread the Gospel, but the other "they", the election, accepted Christ.

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,
.

I don't understand you. You go ahead and keep pasting your same five or so verses but I'm not going to keep talking to you. By definition, you are not acting like a Berean. You ignore the passages I cite and the clear messages contained therein.

The Jews are blinded in part, but there will come a day when the times of the Gentiles are over BEFORE Jesus returns, when a great number of Jews will come to faith in Christ. I believe Romans 11.

And I believe Zechariah 13, and many others that predict a significant remnant of Israel coming to faith in the last days.

Zechariah 13:8-9
8 And it shall come to pass in all the land,”
Says the Lord,
“That two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die,
But one-third shall be left in it:
9 I will bring the one-third through the fire,
Will refine them as silver is refined,
And test them as gold is tested.
They will call on My name,
And I will answer them.
I will say, ‘This is My people’;
And each one will say, ‘The Lord is my God.’ ”

(BTW, today an estimated 1% of Jews are Christians... No where near 33%. They are still mostly blinded.)

And I believe Hosea 5:14-6:3:

14 For I will be like a lion to Ephraim,
And like a young lion to the house of Judah.
I, even I, will tear them and go away;
I will take them away, and no one shall rescue.
15 I will return again to My place
Till they acknowledge their offense.
Then they will seek My face;
In their affliction they will earnestly seek Me.”
6 Come, and let us return to the Lord;
For He has torn, but He will heal us;
He has stricken, but He will bind us up.
2 After two days He will revive us;
On the third day He will raise us up,
That we may live in His sight.
3 Let us know,
Let us pursue the knowledge of the Lord.
His going forth is established as the morning;
He will come to us like the rain,
Like the latter and former rain to the earth.

 

[BABerean2]

I don't understand you. You go ahead and keep pasting your same five or so verses but I'm not going to keep talking to you. By definition, you are not acting like a Berean. You ignore the passages I cite and the clear messages contained therein.

The Jews are blinded in part, but there will come a day when the times of the Gentiles are over BEFORE Jesus returns, when a great number of Jews will come to faith in Christ. I believe Romans 11.

And I believe Zechariah 13, and many others that predict a significant remnant of Israel coming to faith in the last days.

My wife and I support two organizations that are now taking the Gospel to the Jewish people.
We do this because we realize that the only way of salvation is by being grafted into the Olive Tree of Romans chapter 11, which is the New Blood Covenant Church of Jesus Christ.
We believe Romans 11 and the rest of God's Word, without forcing it to fit John Nelson Darby's Two Peoples of God doctrine.
Not only do we believe a large number of Jews will come to faith, we are attempting to be a part of the effort.
I have had Jewish Christians in my home for Bible study.

There are those in the modern evangelical Church teaching that God will go back to dealing with the modern nation of Israel under the Old obsolete Sinai covenant, after the pretrib removal of the Church, 7 years before Christ's Second Coming.
This Darby/Scofield doctrine cannot be found is scripture. Those who promote this doctrine need to read Paul's warning in Galatians 1:6-9.

It will not hurt my feelings if you stop talking to me.
I will still continue to love you.


1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
.......................................................
Genesis of Dispensational Theology

 

[Douggg]

It is a summary, explanation, or an amplifier of the clause before it. The links proved that.

What link are you referring to?

An appositive clause does not function like the appositive noun. It is a summary, explanation, or an amplifier of the clause before it. The links proved that.

The clauses in these examples are appositives and noun clauses (which they function as a noun). Copied and pasted from this link:
http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/using-noun-clauses-as-appositives/

In grammar, an appositive is a word, phrase, or clause that supports another word, phrase, or clause by describing or modifying the other word, phrase, or clause. Although nouns and noun phrases most often perform the function, noun clauses also perform the grammatical function of appositive. Examples of noun clauses as appositives include the following:

• 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.

The appositive clause does not modify the subject of the main clause. It modifies the statement made.

While it can be an appositive for the subject of an independent clause, it doesn't have to be. It identifies the word that it is place next to.

It summarizes, explains, amplifies the main clause.

In the case of Daniel 9:26, there is no appositive for several reasons: (colon, and now my list, series)
(1) the sentence is made up of independent clauses that each can stand alone on its own.
(2) there is no appositive clause next to any word. phrase, clause, for which it is being an appositive.
(3) there is no identifying or renaming of any word, phrase, clause for which it is being an appositive.

(doug wrote:
Jesus, our Lord and Savior, we worship. That's an appositive.
There are no appositives anywhere in verse 9:26.)

You don't even know what an appositive clause is.

That particular example, I did not say was an appositive clause, but an appositive. There are no appositive's anywhere in verse 9:26, nor appositive clauses.... for the several reasons I gave above.

 

[precepts]

What link are you referring to?

The links I posted proving that appositive clauses exist.

The clauses in these examples are appositives and noun clauses (which they function as a noun). Copied and pasted from this link:
http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/using-noun-clauses-as-appositives/

In grammar, an appositive is a word, phrase, or clause that supports another word, phrase, or clause by describing or modifying the other word, phrase, or clause. Although nouns and noun phrases most often perform the function, noun clauses also perform the grammatical function of appositive. Examples of noun clauses as appositives include the following:

• 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.

I read the link, but you're missing the point. These are examples of "noun clauses" used as appositive clauses, meaning they "are" modifying a noun. But the link proves that an appositive clause can modify a whole clause itself, and that is what is happening in Dan 9:26.

While it can be an appositive for the subject of an independent clause, it doesn't have to be. It identifies the word that it is place next to.

Which part of, "In grammar, an appositive is a word, phrase, or clause that supports another word, phrase, or clause by describing or modifying the other word, phrase, or clause", don't you comprehend?

In the case of Daniel 9:26, there is no appositive for several reasons: (colon, and now my list, series)
(1) the sentence is made up of independent clauses that each can stand alone on its own.
(2) there is no appositive clause next to any word. phrase, clause, for which it is being an appositive.
(3) there is no identifying or renaming of any word, phrase, clause for which it is being an appositive.

You are ignoring the function of the colon. You keep reading the verse as if the colon doesn't exist to establish that what follows it modifies what's before it, hence the appositive clause rule.

That particular example, I did not say was an appositive clause, but an appositive. There are no appositive's anywhere in verse 9:26, nor appositive clauses.... for the several reasons I gave above.

Which proves what I said: You still don't know what an appositive clause is - even though I've highlighted the fact numerous times.

The colon signifies that what follows it modifies what's before it. And you still haven't shown where this list can be a list of independent clauses.

 

[Luke17:37]

My wife and I support two organizations that are now taking the Gospel to the Jewish people.
We do this because we realize that the only way of salvation is by being grafted into the Olive Tree of Romans chapter 11, which is the New Blood Covenant Church of Jesus Christ.
We believe Romans 11 and the rest of God's Word, without forcing it to fit John Nelson Darby's Two Peoples of God doctrine.
Not only do we believe a large number of Jews will come to faith, we are attempting to be a part of the effort.
I have had Jewish Christians in my home for Bible study.

There are those in the modern evangelical Church teaching that God will go back to dealing with the modern nation of Israel under the Old obsolete Sinai covenant, after the pretrib removal of the Church, 7 years before Christ's Second Coming.
This Darby/Scofield doctrine cannot be found is scripture. Those who promote this doctrine need to read Paul's warning in Galatians 1:6-9.

It will not hurt my feelings if you stop talking to me.
I will still continue to love you.


1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
.......................................................
Genesis of Dispensational Theology

I am not talking about a return to the Sinai covenant, and I haven't heard anyone teaching that. The Sinai covenant doesn't save--it just convicts a person of sin and helps him realize the exhaustive bloody debt sin earns (Hebrews 9-10).

Hebrews 10:4
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

I am talking about God saving a large number of Jews according to the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Messiah of the Jews and the Gentiles, the same gospel that saved the Jewish apostles and us as well.

But God made an unconditional covenant with Abraham, which has never been completely fulfilled. It will not be fulfilled until Christ returns and "threshes" His land, destroying the beast's army assembled at Armageddon--from the wadi of Egypt to the Euphrates River (Genesis 15:18-21, Isaiah 27:12) and expanding the borders of the land (Isaiah 26:15, Isaiah 9:3) according to the covenant God made with Abraham (Genesis 15). God is not done with the Jews in any way. There will always be a remnant of Jews saved (today, believed to be about 1%) but it will grow much more significant before His return (~33%, per Zechariah 13, and the rest will die, so "all Israel will be saved").

I am glad you are involved in Jewish evangelism. I am, too, and intend to continue. I attend a Jews for Jesus Bible study and I'm connected with them. I also enjoy watching the imetmessiah.com testimony videos. If God wills, Jewish evangelism will be one of the defining elements of my life. I also feel pretty called to Muslim evangelism (I highly recommend the film More Than Dreams (www.morethandreams.org) and Nabeel Qureshi's book, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus). But perhaps most significantly, I feel God is calling me to exhortation and teaching the confessing church of Jesus Christ to believe the Scriptures and not the lies concerning the Tribulation and the Return of Christ, in hopes that God may spur the unprepared to gather extra oil and so be among the wise virgins and not the foolish.

 

[Douggg]

The links I posted proving that appositive clauses exist.

The intent of my question was that you provide the links again.

I read the link, but you're missing the point. These are examples of "noun clauses" used as appositive clauses, meaning they "are" modifying a noun. But the link proves that an appositive clause can modify a whole clause itself, and that is what is happening in Dan 9:26.

You had written that an appositive clause cannot be an appositive for the subject of a sentence. I provided the link, and copied and pasted examples from that link that they can.

Which part of, "In grammar, an appositive is a word, phrase, or clause that supports another word, phrase, or clause by describing or modifying the other word, phrase, or clause", don't you comprehend?

Please try to get control over your emotions. All of the clauses in Daniel 9:26 preceded by an "and" are independent clauses, because they can stand alone as sentences of their own. To have an appositive clause, there has to be a dependent clause in that sentence. But there aren't any dependent clauses.

If you think there are dependent clauses in Daniel 9:26 - that is, clauses which can not stand alone as a sentence of their own, then copy and paste the verse, and highlight that clause.

You are ignoring the function of the colon. You keep reading the verse as if the colon doesn't exist to establish that what follows it modifies what's before it, hence the appositive clause rule.

Again, please try to get control of your emotions. I have been addressing the colon in that sentence as a punctuation mark that denotes a list that follows. That list is the series of the last three independent clauses of the sentence.

The colon signifies that what follows it modifies what's before it. And you still haven't shown where this list can be a list of independent clauses.

Actually I have several times, shown the list made of independent clauses. Here they are again.

First the colon > : Then the independent clauses as a list of things that happen after the messiah is cutoff.... shown as independent stand alone sentences, proving that they are independent clauses.

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.

 

[precepts]

The intent of my question was that you provide the links again.

You could have gone back and looked. Plus, this link says the same thing, but it's as if you're allergic to the fact.

You had written that an appositive clause cannot be an appositive for the subject of a sentence. I provided the link, and copied and pasted examples from that link that they can.

Please! I doubt I ever said that, but that's not the issue. The issue is you not comprehending that the appositive clause can modify the preceding clause on a whole, period.

Please try to get control over your emotions. All of the clauses in Daniel 9:26 preceded by an "and" are independent clauses, because they can stand alone as sentences of their own. To have an appositive clause, there has to be a dependent clause in that sentence. But there aren't any dependent clauses.

"In grammar, an appositive is a word, phrase, or clause that supports another word, phrase, or clause by describing or modifying the other word, phrase, or clause."

Where does it say in order for an appositive clause to modify it's preceding clause that it needs a dependent clause? You're making stuff up to avoid the fact; but then again, no one else is commenting, which says a lot about why this false doctrine still exists.

If you think there are dependent clauses in Daniel 9:26 - that is, clauses which can not stand alone as a sentence of their own, then copy and paste the verse, and highlight that clause.

I am not a grammar expert, and I never said dependent clauses. I said subordinate clauses. And whether I am right or wrong on that topic, the issue is the clauses being appositive clauses, which they are. The cutting of is done by the "prince" and his people, not a separate event but an appositive event.

Again, please try to get control of your emotions. I have been addressing the colon in that sentence as a punctuation mark that denotes a list that follows. That list is the series of the last three independent clauses of the sentence.

Yes, but you still consider and comprehend the verse to be a compound sentence when it's not. Main clauses, however joined to their appositive clauses are not a compound sentence the same way a list after an independent clause is not a compound sentence. It is an appositive.

Actually I have several times, shown the list made of independent clauses. Here they are again.

First the colon > : Then the independent clauses as a list of things that happen after the messiah is cutoff.... shown as independent stand alone sentences, proving that they are independent clauses.

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.

I meant in the rules of grammar.

Get off me!

 

[Douggg]

"In grammar, an appositive is a word, phrase, or clause that supports another word, phrase, or clause by describing or modifying the other word, phrase, or clause." Where does it say in order for an appositive clause to modify it's preceding clause that it needs a dependent clause? You're making stuff up to avoid the fact; but then again, no one else is commenting, which says a lot about why this false doctrine still exists.

From the site, I have been linking to, and copying pasting examples - http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/using-noun-clauses-as-appositives/

First the person is saying what a dependent clause is (in her explanation below in the quote). She says a noun clause (which is going to be used as the appositive clause in her examples) is a type of dependent clause. So if there are no dependent clauses in Daniel 9:26. there is no appositive. The clauses that begin with an "and" in Daniel 9:26 are all independent clauses.

"In grammar, a clause is a grammatical structure that consists of a subject and a predicate. A dependent or subordinate clause is a clause that cannot function independently as a complete sentence but that must appear with another independent or main clause. A noun clause is a type of dependent clause that performs a nominal function.

In grammar, an appositive is a word, phrase, or clause that supports another word, phrase, or clause by describing or modifying the other word, phrase, or clause. Although nouns and noun phrases most often perform the function, noun clauses also perform the grammatical function of appositive. Examples of noun clauses as appositives include the following:

• 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."

 

[precepts]

From the site, I have been linking to, and copying pasting examples - http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/using-noun-clauses-as-appositives/

First the person is saying what a dependent clause is (in her explanation below in the quote). She says a noun clause (which is going to be used as the appositive clause in her examples) is a type of dependent clause. So if there are no dependent clauses in Daniel 9:26. there is no appositive. The clauses that begin with an "and" in Daniel 9:26 are all independent clauses.

I don't know why you're stuck on noun appositives. An appositive clause does not have to be a noun clause, but I do get the sublime message.

Peace out!

 

[Douggg]

I don't know why you're stuck on noun appositives. An appositive clause does not have to be a noun clause, but I do get the sublime message.

View attachment 169974View attachment 169975
Peace out!

Then please provide your examples from some grammar site.

Also if you claim Daniel 9:26 is not a compound sentence, in your view, then what kind of sentence is Daniel 9:26 are you claiming it is and why, grammatically speaking?

The types of sentences by structure are:
simple sentence
compound sentence
complex sentence
compound complex sentence.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

Well, I guess you guys are KJV'rs, and that's fine. I hope that you all do realize, those in this discussion about the colon, that there is no punctuation in the original or any of the copied texts. All periods, commas, colons and semi-colons are the addition of a translator. In reading over the text translators have decided where and what appropriate punctuation, necessary for current readers to understand, should be used.

If you read through the many translations of this passage you'll find that most do not have a colon in the entire chapter and most of those who do, put the colon after the subject of the end.

So, since we know for a fact that not a single one of the source manuscripts that we have today of this passage has any punctuation, the first question to be asked and answered is, "who decided to put a colon at this place and why?"

You guys are arguing over what the colon signifies and you don't even know if the colon should be there. You don't have a clue 'who' decided to put it there. I can assure you that it wasn't Daniel. The colon is likely there, in either place that it is found, to address just exactly what you think that it does address, but...

It is merely the work of a translator trying to get you to believe that it should be read and understood the way he apparently read and understood it. As far as I know, there is absolutely nothing in the oldest copies of Daniel that we have at our disposal to infer or insist that the passage needs to have a colon in it.

When we start to establish theological understandings on punctuation, we're in trouble. There isn't any.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Douggg]

When we start to establish theological understandings on punctuation, we're in trouble. There isn't any.

miameted, I agree in principle. But at the same time without grammar rules, and punctuation it would be difficult to read the text. Whether the translators were correct in their application of the punctuation, etc. is another issue. My view is that the text most often will validate itself by other passages in the bible that relate in some manner.

Luke 17:37 (screenname) brought up essentially your point in post #173 of this thread. And I responded in my post #180 in this thread.

If you page back through the posts, precepts was the one who initiated this exercise in english grammer review, in post #70 and #78.

 

[BABerean2]

But God made an unconditional covenant with Abraham, which has never been completely fulfilled.

Does your statement agree with what the Apostle Paul said?


Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
(The Promise was made to only the One seed, who is Christ, not the many seeds.)

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(We are Abraham's seed, and inherit the promise to Abraham.)


Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
(There are two Israels, Israel of the Flesh and Israel of the Promise. Only those of the Promise are the children of God.)

Eph_2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
(Bloodline is no longer a factor.)


What did Peter say about bloodline?

Act_10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:


In the New Covenant, salvation is in no way related to bloodline.

There is now no difference between a naked native living in the Amazon rain forest and a Jew living in the modern nation of Israel.
They both need Christ for the same reason and in the same way.

Salvation for both only comes by being grafted into the Olive Tree.
.

 

[Douggg]

Does your statement agree with what the Apostle Paul said?


Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
(The Promise was made to only the One seed, who is Christ, not the many seeds.)

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(We are Abraham's seed, and inherit the promise to Abraham.)


Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
(There are two Israels, Israel of the Flesh and Israel of the Promise. Only those of the Promise are the children of God.)

Eph_2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
(Bloodline is no longer a factor.)


What did Peter say about bloodline?

Act_10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:


In the New Covenant, salvation is in no way related to bloodline.

There is now no difference between a naked native living in the Amazon rain forest and a Jew living in the modern nation of Israel.
They both need Christ for the same reason and in the same way.

Salvation for both only comes by being grafted into the Olive Tree.
.

Bab2, But none of what you wrote changes that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 are upon Israel and Jerusalem - until they, not the naked native living in the Amazon rain forest, embrace Jesus as their savior from their sins.

 

[precepts]

Then please provide your examples from some grammar site.

Also if you claim Daniel 9:26 is not a compound sentence, in your view, then what kind of sentence is Daniel 9:26 are you claiming it is and why, grammatically speaking?

The types of sentences by structure are:
simple sentence
compound sentence
complex sentence
compound complex sentence.

You're not that naive. You're purposely refusing to admit the fact: "In grammar, an appositive is a word, phrase, or clause that supports another word, phrase, or clause by describing or modifying the other word, phrase, or clause."

And is a independent clause followed by a colon and a list of phrases a compound sentence too?

All the examples from all the links you posted used phrases. I would like to see one with some independent clauses please. I think you're misinterpreting what is meant by a "list" from an appositive.

 

[BABerean2]

Bab2, But none of what you wrote changes that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 are upon Israel and Jerusalem - until they, not the naked native living in the Amazon rain forest, embrace Jesus as their savior from their sins.

Forget what Paul and Peter said.
We will go by what you are saying instead.
According to you, God is a respecter of persons, based on bloodline.

Who is "they" and how many are "they" in this group, based on bloodline?


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:

What does the word "remnant" mean?


G2640


κατάλειμμα


kataleimma


kat-al'-ime-mah


From G2641; a remainder, that is, (by implication) a few: - remnant.
.

 

[precepts]

Hi all,

Well, I guess you guys are KJV'rs, and that's fine. I hope that you all do realize, those in this discussion about the colon, that there is no punctuation in the original or any of the copied texts. All periods, commas, colons and semi-colons are the addition of a translator. In reading over the text translators have decided where and what appropriate punctuation, necessary for current readers to understand, should be used.

If you read through the many translations of this passage you'll find that most do not have a colon in the entire chapter and most of those who do, put the colon after the subject of the end.

So, since we know for a fact that not a single one of the source manuscripts that we have today of this passage has any punctuation, the first question to be asked and answered is, "who decided to put a colon at this place and why?"

You guys are arguing over what the colon signifies and you don't even know if the colon should be there. You don't have a clue 'who' decided to put it there. I can assure you that it wasn't Daniel. The colon is likely there, in either place that it is found, to address just exactly what you think that it does address, but...

It is merely the work of a translator trying to get you to believe that it should be read and understood the way he apparently read and understood it. As far as I know, there is absolutely nothing in the oldest copies of Daniel that we have at our disposal to infer or insist that the passage needs to have a colon in it.

When we start to establish theological understandings on punctuation, we're in trouble. There isn't any.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

You're missing the point. It's not about the colon. It's about who the "he" in verse 27 is referring to. What or who is the antecedent of the "he" in verse 27?

 

[Douggg]

You're not that naive. You're purposely refusing to admit the fact: "In grammar, an appositive is a word, phrase, or clause that supports another word, phrase, or clause by describing or modifying the other word, phrase, or clause."

And is a independent clause followed by a colon and a list of phrases a compound sentence too? All the examples from all the links you posted used phrases. I would like to see on with independent clauses please.

It is up to you to find an independent clause that functions as an appositive, some example, from some grammar site. All of the clauses in Daniel 9:26 preceded by an "and" are independent clauses - which are not appositive clauses.

In the examples below, the same examples I used before, which I copied and pasted, the appostives are not phrases. They are clauses because they have a subject and verb. They are dependent clauses, not independent clauses; and as appositives, they are dependent clauses.

I will highlight the subject in red and verb in blue in each of the dependent appositive noun clauses...

• 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.

These ones in her examples are infinitive clauses which are similar to infinity phrases. But these examples have a subject which makes them an infinitive clause.

• 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."

None of the above 6 examples showing a clause used as an appositve is an independent clause. They are all dependent clauses.

Contrasting to Daniel 9:26, which all of the clauses preceded by an "and" are independent clauses, and do not act as an appositive. The only dependent clause in the sentence is within one of the independent clauses, and it is an adjective clause, modifying "the prince". The pronoun "that" could have been "who" shall come, and worked just as well.

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. (dependent adjective clause in green)_

And the end thereof shall be with a flood.

And unto the end of the war desolations are determined.