The original Hebrew text, which we have, trumps any ancient translation.
Which "original" Hebrew text are you referring to, Biblewriter?
"The Dead Sea scrolls decided these issues, by showing that there was indeed a Hebrew text-type on which the Septuagint-translation was based and which differed substantially from the received MT. These findings also confirmed that most of the textual phenomena in the Samaritan version (aside from ideological changes) were part of a Hebrew text-type in common use outside of the Samaritan community as well, during the Second Temple period in the Land of Israel.3" [Menachem Cohen, 'The Idea of the Sanctity of the Biblical Text,' 1979]
"It can also now be proven beyond doubt that the author of Chronicles used a version of Samuel different from the MT and closer to the Lucianic version of the Septuagint, whose Hebrew prototype was found at Qumran." [Menachem Cohen, 'The Idea of the Sanctity of the Biblical Text,' 1979]
"Oil was added to the flames of controversy with the discovery and publication of the Samaritan Hebrew text in the beginning of the 17th century (1616). Here was a Hebrew language text which was preserved for many years outside the transmission traditions of the Masorah, and it contained many variations also found in the Septuagint (nearly two thousand). Thus, for theological reasons within the Christian community, different text-types were compared and compared again, while the developing science of philology served as a tool in this internal debate." [Menachem Cohen, 'The Idea of the Sanctity of the Biblical Text,' 1979]
Just for curiosity, Biblewriter, do you think we should be using the same translation of the Old Testament that Christ and the Apostles used?
.
And we leave the spiritulization to others, we simply believe what the scriptures say.
Of course you do.
.
Three things were to happen after the sixty-two weeks, which, coming after the initial seven weeks, makes sixty nine weeks.
Messiah was to be cut off.
The city and the sanctuary were to be destroyed.
And a one week covenant was to be made.
The first two of these most definately did not take place withing a single week (of years.) And the one week covenant, being the only mention of a seventieth week, has to be the seventiweth week.
That is completely without logic. Christ arrived at the end of 69 weeks, and he ministered for 3.5 years or one-half week. At that time he was cut off out of the land of the living, which places the time-line half-way through the 70th week. Christ confirmed the covenant for the entire 70th week: half while living, and half via his disciples (Matt 10:5-6; 15:24, 10:40; Acts 3:25; Rom 15:8). The 70th week was completed when the Gentiles were allowed into the commonwealth of Israel (Acts 10.)
The time allotted for the desolation of the city and sanctuary was decreed separately (Dan 9:26,) and was therefore NOT part of the 70 weeks decreed in Dan 9:24.
.
Thus we see that the suppsedly imagined gap was actually in the text from the very beginning. That is why the most ancient Christian commentaries we have spoke of it as future.
So, you are relying on the "most ancient" commentaries? Are those the ones that claim the Church is the new Israel?
Have you ever read the book, "Frauds and Follies of the Early Christian Fathers"?
"
Frauds and Follies of the Fathers - Joseph Mazzini Wheeler - Google Books