7 year peace treaty, what 7 year peace treaty?

[miamited]

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.

Hi doug,

And yet, the children of Israel went so long without knowing what the word of their God said. Sad isn't it?

The problem, as I've already mentioned is that verse numbering, chapter numbering, periods, commas and colons and semi-colons are all added 'aids' of men. Maybe some of them are right. Maybe not. As I mentioned also, if you look through all of the various translations, you'll find that very, very, very few translators felt the text should be written with the punctuation that good ole Jimmy chose.

Who is right? Since it isn't a part of the original text there's no way anyone should base a theological doctrine or understanding on a punctuation mark.

Oh, we are such wiser men than those ignorant peasants of the past. Just how did they get along? Wait, doesn't God say that we think ourselves wise but have become fools? Maybe He knows a lot more than we wise sages give Him credit for.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

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?

Hi precepts,

I'll go with you being correct, but I read a whole lot of stuff in these posts that went something like this: The colon denotes...

Now, perhaps your trying to use the colon to determine who the 'he' is, but I still stand by that being bad form. The colon isn't there and there was no punctuation mark in the Hebrew language of Daniel's day that is understood to mean to them what a 'colon' means to us.

If you want to know, the 'he' is the ruler who is to come.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[precepts]

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.

You keep acting as if you don't know what the issue is. Every time I make a point, you come back with some off the wall statement. I do not need to find anything. You are the one who had never heard of an appositive clause, which you keep denying every time you post.

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.

Again with the off the wall statements. The issue is and never was if independent or dependent. The issue is nothing you posted support independent clauses after a colon classified as being a list.

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.

You can run but you can't hide.

 

[precepts]

Hi precepts,

I'll go with you being correct, but I read a whole lot of stuff in these posts that went something like this: The colon denotes...

Now, perhaps your trying to use the colon to determine who the 'he' is, but I still stand by that being bad form. The colon isn't there and there was no punctuation mark in the Hebrew language of Daniel's day that is understood to mean to them what a 'colon' means to us.

If you want to know, the 'he' is the ruler who is to come.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

If I want to know? I already know. The antecedent is Christ, the Mess--h.

The entire context of the 70wks prophecy, from verses 24 to 27, is about Him: 7wks to his anointing; his cutting off in the middle of the week; his confirming the covenant for the week; and last but not least, his causing the daily sacrifice and oblation to cease because of the overspreading of the abominations.

And by the way, these exact words are used in Dan 8:9-12 and 11:30-31 when describing the very act done by the Greek little horn, fulfilling vs 27 to the tee.

 

[Luke17:37]

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.
.

I wasn't talking about Sinai covenant or the new covenant.

I'm talking about the Abrahamic covenant. Here it is:

Genesis 15:7-21
7 Then He said to him, “I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it.”
8 And he said, “Lord God, how shall I know that I will inherit it?”
9 So He said to him, “Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” 10 Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, down the middle, and placed each piece opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds in two. 11 And when the vultures came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.
12 Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him. 13 Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. 14 And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions. 15 Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. 16 But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”
17 And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces. 18 On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying:
“To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates—19 the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

The Abrahamic covenant, which is an unconditional covenant God made with Abraham, has never been fulfilled. Israel has never possessed the entire land according to the borders God proclaimed from the wadi of Egypt to the Euphrates River.

They won't have it until Messiah comes again and increases the borders of Israel (Isaiah 9:3, Isaiah 26:15, Isaiah 27:12). Isn't that cool? The Lord Jesus Himself will fulfill the Abrahamic covenant. It's obvious when you read Isaiah 9 and 26-27 it is the work of the Lord, the Messiah, not a strictly human king.

 

[Luke17:37]

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.
.

The Abraham's Seed promise, BTW, is from Genesis 22. Jesus is Abraham's Seed. Through Jesus, all nations of the world will be blessed.

Genesis 22:15-18
15 Then the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, 16 and said: “By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son—17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. 18 In your Seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

Abraham got to be the forefather of the promised Savior, Jesus, who would bring blessing to ALL NATIONS - Israel, and all the other nations of the world.

 

[Luke17:37]

Hi doug,

And yet, the children of Israel went so long without knowing what the word of their God said. Sad isn't it?

The problem, as I've already mentioned is that verse numbering, chapter numbering, periods, commas and colons and semi-colons are all added 'aids' of men. Maybe some of them are right. Maybe not. As I mentioned also, if you look through all of the various translations, you'll find that very, very, very few translators felt the text should be written with the punctuation that good ole Jimmy chose.

Who is right? Since it isn't a part of the original text there's no way anyone should base a theological doctrine or understanding on a punctuation mark.

Oh, we are such wiser men than those ignorant peasants of the past. Just how did they get along? Wait, doesn't God say that we think ourselves wise but have become fools? Maybe He knows a lot more than we wise sages give Him credit for.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Yes.

Scripture interprets Scripture.

Because of Daniel 11:31, there's no way I can interpret Daniel 9:26-27 as being only about Jesus.

Daniel 11:30-32
30 For ships from Cyprus shall come against him; therefore he shall be grieved, and return in rage against the holy covenant, and do damage.
“So he shall return and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant. 31 And forces shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation. 32 Those who do wickedly against the covenant he shall corrupt with flattery; but the people who know their God shall be strong, and carry out great exploits.

Daniel 9:26-27
26 “And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

The actions of Daniel 9 closely parallel Daniel 11, and there's no question that the person in Daniel 11 is wicked. Thus, I see the he of verse 27 to be the prince who is to come... not Messiah.

 

[miamited]

Hi luke,

Yes, and the 'prince who is to come' is Satan. It was during Jesus life here that he was cast down from heaven. Jesus himself said, 'I saw Satan fall like lightening'. We know that Satan then had dominion over all the earth. He tempted Jesus with giving him control over all the earth and said that it was his to give. Jesus didn't refute that.

The 'people of' are the lost, but more specifically in this particular issue of the destruction of the sanctuary and the city, were the Romans and their government. But Satan is still here and he still has dominion over the earth and he will cause to come about a covenant. Most people consider this covenant to be one of peace for all people especially in light of all the turmoil and death that is currently going on in the middle east. Many teachers expect that someone, the Antichrist and his minion, will work to hammer out a peace accord that will then be broken.

Now, whether or not that is what the covenant will be, I don't know, but it certainly would make sense. The Scriptures tell us of the Antichrist and the beast that the whole world will follow after them. Personally, I can't think of anyone more apt to have such a following than someone who appears to bring peace out of the long, long battles of the middle east.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

If I want to know? I already know. The antecedent is Christ, the Mess--h.

The entire context of the 70wks prophecy, from verses 24 to 27, is about Him: 7wks to his anointing; his cutting off in the middle of the week; his confirming the covenant for the week; and last but not least, his causing the daily sacrifice and oblation to cease because of the overspreading of the abominations.

And by the way, these exact words are used in Dan 8:9-12 and 11:30-31 when describing the very act done by the Greek little horn, fulfilling vs 27 to the tee.

Hi precepts,

Well, if that's your position then you'll have to go with it.

God bless you
In Christ, Ted

 

[Luke17:37]

Hi luke,

Yes, and the 'prince who is to come' is Satan. It was during Jesus life here that he was cast down from heaven. Jesus himself said, 'I saw Satan fall like lightening'. We know that Satan then had dominion over all the earth. He tempted Jesus with giving him control over all the earth and said that it was his to give. Jesus didn't refute that.

The 'people of' are the lost, but more specifically in this particular issue of the destruction of the sanctuary and the city, were the Romans and their government. But Satan is still here and he still has dominion over the earth and he will cause to come about a covenant. Most people consider this covenant to be one of peace for all people especially in light of all the turmoil and death that is currently going on in the middle east. Many teachers expect that someone, the Antichrist and his minion, will work to hammer out a peace accord that will then be broken.

Now, whether or not that is what the covenant will be, I don't know, but it certainly would make sense. The Scriptures tell us of the Antichrist and the beast that the whole world will follow after them. Personally, I can't think of anyone more apt to have such a following than someone who appears to bring peace out of the long, long battles of the middle east.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

The implication, for me, is that the conqueror conquers without traditional warfare, since seal 1 is distinguished from seal 2 (war).

First Seal (Revelation 6:2)
2 And I looked, and behold, a white horse. He who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.

Second Seal (Revelation 6:4)
4 Another horse, fiery red, went out. And it was granted to the one who sat on it to take peace from the earth, and that people should kill one another, and there was given to him a great sword.

It makes sense to me, then, that he would conquer in "peace," like a Trojan horse.

 

[Goodbook]

Daniel 11 is about the same covenant.
There is not going to be yet another covenant because Jesus made the new one and he said 'it is finished'. When the temple was destroyed that marked the end people could see, but before that Jesus was crucified i.e,cut off. That was the actual start of the new when his blood was placed on the mercy seat and ratified.

It would be like someone making a will and it only coming into effect after that person dies. I.e Jesus. But the evidence of it all being handed over is when say the land is all sold, ile. Temple destroyed, which it was by the romans.

 

[Goodbook]

The new temple was actually raised up on the third day...Jesus body.
And now his holy spirit resides in born again believers...in our bodies.
This is the new covenant, and the ark, or the law written in stone is written on the fleshly tablets of our hearts.

So...i dont knkw where ppl get this 7 year peace treaty idea from. Lol. Jesus came, he divided but he also made peace..the peace that passeth all understanding.

 

[Goodbook]

And yes israel has extended her borders...to the ends of the earth.

 

[precepts]

Hi precepts,

Well, if that's your position then you'll have to go with it.

God bless you
In Christ, Ted

If that is my position? That is not my position, it is the fact.

"Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
[The context concerns Christ!]

Dan 9:25 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.
[The wall was rebuilt in 445 bc, Neh 6:15, in 52 days; and the context again concerns Christ!]

Dan 9:26 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.
[The "ands' prove they are appositives to the cutting off of Christ, making Christ the subject of the main clause.]

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." Again the subject is Christ.



The proof:
"Dan 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

Dan 8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

Dan 8:10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

Dan 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

Dan 8:12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

Dan 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

Dan 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." This is what's spoken of in

Dan 9:27, the daily sacrifice and oblation ceasings, done by the Greek little horn, not by the Romans


This is the same Greek context:
"Dan 11:30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.
[Note Roman temple destruction had no forsakers of the covenant helping.]

Dan 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Dan 11:32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits."

I can only lead a horse to water; I can't make him drink.

490 yrs from Cyrus' 539 BC decree does not equate to any year A.D.

 

[Luke17:37]

And yes israel has extended her borders...to the ends of the earth.

I celebrate with you about the salvation God has provided Jews and Gentiles through Jesus.

However, the unconditional covenant God made with Abraham was about the land that his descendants would inherit. The promise of the Savior through Abraham's line was simply a promise, and He kept it of course, but concerning the land of Israel, God cut a covenant (Genesis 15). You can search the Bible and other historical records--it has never been fulfilled to the full measure. It won't be, according to the Scriptures I provided before, until Jesus returns and reigns as King in Jerusalem over all the earth. Other nations will still have identities even then (see Zechariah 14:16-19). If God didn't mean to fulfill it, He wouldn't have made an unconditional covenant (or even a promise) to Abraham. It will happen.

 

[BABerean2]

I celebrate with you about the salvation God has provided Jews and Gentiles through Jesus.

However, the unconditional covenant God made with Abraham was about the land that his descendants would inherit. The promise of the Savior through Abraham's line was simply a promise, and He kept it of course, but concerning the land of Israel, God cut a covenant (Genesis 15). You can search the Bible and other historical records--it has never been fulfilled to the full measure. It won't be, according to the Scriptures I provided before, until Jesus returns and reigns as King in Jerusalem over all the earth. Other nations will still have identities even then (see Zechariah 14:16-19). If God didn't mean to fulfill it, He wouldn't have made an unconditional covenant (or even a promise) to Abraham. It will happen.

Instead of taking the words of the Holy Ghost inspired Jew, the Apostle Paul, in the New Testament at Galatians 3:16, you have taken upon yourself to correct him through your own interpretation of the Old Testament.

Here is your error.

God did make an eternal land promise to Abraham.

The problem is that this sin-cursed world does not last "forever".
Therefore, there cannot be any "eternal" land promise in the Middle East.

However, the New Jerusalem does last forever.

This is plainly found in the New Testament as the inheritance of Abraham and the rest of those in Christ, who inherit the same promise.


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


Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

Heb 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Heb 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

Heb 11:12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Heb 11:14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.

Heb 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.


Rev_3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
.

 

[Luke17:37]

Instead of taking the words of the Holy Ghost inspired Jew, the Apostle Paul, in the New Testament at Galatians 3:16, you have taken upon yourself to correct him through your own interpretation of the Old Testament.

Here is your error.

God did make an eternal land promise to Abraham.

The problem is that this sin-cursed world does not last "forever".
Therefore, there cannot be any "eternal" land promise in the Middle East.

However, the New Jerusalem does last forever.

This is plainly found in the New Testament as the inheritance of Abraham and the rest of those in Christ, who inherit the same promise.


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


Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

Heb 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Heb 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

Heb 11:12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Heb 11:14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.

Heb 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.


Rev_3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
.

But God has never fulfilled it once. And every promise and covenant concerning this earth will be fulfilled before this earth passes away. I am not in error.

Galatians 3:16 is about the fulfillment of the promise in Genesis 22:18, NOT the fulfillment of Genesis 15:18.

 

[miamited]

Hi precepts,

Thanks for your response. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. You're saying that Jesus is the 'he' who will confirm a covenant, put an end to sacrifice and offering and at the temple set up an abomination that causes desolation - until the end 'that is decreed is poured out on him'. Right?

You support this understanding as being confirmed by the vision that Daniel describes in chapter 8, right? The vision that Daniel describes in chapter 8 is of a goat who comes against the ram and tramples him mercilessly and we are told that no one could save the ram from the goat's onslaught.

Then the goat produces a series of horns, and out of one those horns comes another smaller horn which rises to power in both the south and the east and even towards the 'Beautiful' land. This small, but now great, horn then threw down some of the starry host of heaven and set itself up to be 'as great as the commander of the army of the Lord'. It then takes away the daily sacrifice 'from the Lord' and throws down his sanctuary. Then we are told that because of rebellion, the Lord's people and the daily sacrifice were given over to 'him'.

Then a voice asks how long it will be before 'these' things are fulfilled and lists off what 'things'. The vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the 'rebellion' that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the Lord's people.

So, the vision in chapter 8 mentions the same events as the ones happening in the final week of Daniel's 70 sevens, but I'm surely not convinced that the 'it' who will be causing the things in the vision and the 'he' who will be causing the exact same things in the final week is a reference to Jesus.

Ah, but God gives an interpretation of the vision. An angel of the Lord tells Daniel that the vision is concerning the time of the end, the days of wrath. Then the angel goes on to explain that the ram's horns are the kings of Media and Persia. He tells him that the goat is the king of Greece and it's large horn represents the first king of Greece. The four horns that appear represent four kingdoms that will emerge from Greece, but have no power. Finally, we are told that in the later part of the reign of these kingdoms - when 'rebels' (those would be those in rebellion to God) have become completely wicked, a fierce looking king, a master of intrigue will arise. This fierce master of intrigue will become very strong - but not by his own power - and will cause astounding devastation. Succeeding at everything he does and destroy the 'holy' people.

He will cause deceit to prosper and consider himself superior (sounds like Mr. Trump to me. LOL!), and when the people are feeling secure, he will destroy many and take a stand against the 'Prince of princes' (who might that be?). However, he will be destroyed, but not by human endeavor.

Finally, Daniel is told to seal up the vision as it concerns things that will happen in the 'distant' future.

Now, we know that Daniel wrote down the prophecy and so not making it known must not be what is meant by 'seal' up the prophecy. What might that mean?

However, back to the discussion at hand. Your position is that both of these people being discussed in this and the following prophecy of the 70 sevens, is Jesus. Is that correct?

BTW, one last note. You say that 490 years from the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem does not lead to any period within the A.D. accounting of years, right?

Cyrus never issued a decree to restore and rebuild the city. His decree was to rebuild the 'house of God', the temple, if you will. It was Artaxerxes who issued a decree to Nehemiah to rebuild the city. That is believed to have been in 444 B.C. Yes, if one begins with the wrong date, one will end with the wrong date.

It is absolutely true that you can lead a horse to water, but that you can't make the horse drink. One should also be mindful that God has used an ass before to open eyes.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Hank77]

But God has never fulfilled it once. And every promise and covenant concerning this earth will be fulfilled before this earth passes away. I am not in error.

Galatians 3:16 is about the fulfillment of the promise in Genesis 22:18, NOT the fulfillment of Genesis 15:18.

Jos 11:23 And Joshua taketh the whole of the land, according to all that Jehovah hath spoken unto Moses, and Joshua giveth it for an inheritance to Israel according to their divisions, by their tribes; and the land hath rest from war.

Jos 21:43 And Yehovah giveth to Israel the whole of the land which He hath sworn to give to their fathers, and they possess it, and dwell in it;
Jos 21:44 and Yehovah giveth rest to them round about, according to all that which He hath sworn to their fathers, and there hath not stood a man in their presence of all their enemies, the whole of their enemies hath Yehovah given into their hand;
Jos 21:45 there hath not fallen a thing of all the good thing which Yehovah spake unto the house of Israel--the whole hath come.

God gave them the land, the whole of it, and they possessed it and dwelled in it.

 

[Luke17:37]

Jos 11:23 And Joshua taketh the whole of the land, according to all that Jehovah hath spoken unto Moses, and Joshua giveth it for an inheritance to Israel according to their divisions, by their tribes; and the land hath rest from war.

Jos 21:43 And Yehovah giveth to Israel the whole of the land which He hath sworn to give to their fathers, and they possess it, and dwell in it;
Jos 21:44 and Yehovah giveth rest to them round about, according to all that which He hath sworn to their fathers, and there hath not stood a man in their presence of all their enemies, the whole of their enemies hath Yehovah given into their hand;
Jos 21:45 there hath not fallen a thing of all the good thing which Yehovah spake unto the house of Israel--the whole hath come.

God gave them the land, the whole of it, and they possessed it and dwelled in it.

They never fully expelled the peoples who lived there, nor took over the entire territory. And of the land they conquered, God actually reduced their territory on account of their rebellion (e.g., 2 Kings 10:32).