Where is the Evidence of a Gap in the 70 weeks of Dan 9?

iamlamad said:

So the time of Antiochus Epiphanes ENDS with verse 35 as the TYPE of the beast, and then verse 36 is about the Beast of Revelation 13. The ending of Antiochus' desolation was to end at an "appointed" time. (Chapter 8)

Click to expand...

iamlamad said:

34 and 35 above comes right out of chapter 8 and is about Antiochus and the Jews during his time of desolation.

Click to expand...

safswan said:

The point I am trying to make is that;there is nothing in the passage which indicates such a change as is popularly claimed.

Click to expand...

DavidPT said:

Daniel 8:17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision

Daniel 11:35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

Daniel 11:40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Daniel 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

In my mind, right or wrong, all of the above passages where they each mention the time of the end, they are all refrencing the same time of the end. And if I am correct about that, in my mind as well, the time of the end meant has to at least be meaning a time post the first advent. That would indicate any past commentators many seem to rely on for their understanding of many of these passages in Daniel, that if any of these past commentators concluded some or all of these passages were already fulfilled prior to the first advent, they would be contradicting Daniel 12:9 in that case.

Click to expand...

DavidPT said:

Obviously, if the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end, they then can't be fully understood by anyone prior to the time of the end. That means any past commentators who took Daniel 8:17, for instance, to have already been fulfilled before the first advent, assuming, in reality, the time of the end is actually meaning post the first advent instead, this would mean these past commentators understood absolutely zero about what they were alleging to have understood at the time.

I'm not claiming they were then wrong about everything in the book of Daniel, but only claiming they would have been wrong about anything in the book of Daniel having to do with the time of the end, and they then claiming the time of the end meant preceeded the first advent somehow. If they have Antiochus fulfilling some of these passages, such as Daniel 8:17, that would indicate the time of the end meant does not follow the first advent, but proceeds it instead.

And then one has to logically explain how some of these past commentators understood some of these things while the words, and the book were still sealed, that according to Daniel 12:9?

Click to expand...

Biblewriter said:

Your reply clearly demonstrates your inability to actually understand what was said. You claim, without a particle of grammatical justification, that the words "even to the time of the end" apply to everything said from verse 30 through 35. The obvious meaning of that clause was that it applied to the sentence which it terminated. This is the point of the jump.

Click to expand...

iamlamad said:

We know there MUST be a change because 12:1 is in the middle of the 70th week. That just seems to be the best place.

Click to expand...

safswan said:

Of course it does not but it is your interpretation that would cause this to appear to be so.



I am ignoring nothing,rather it is you who are adding to scripture where Daniel 8 is concerned. Daniel 2 and 7,extend to the coming of the Lord but other passages like Daniel 8 and by extension Daniel 9, are in the past and the two kingdoms identified in Daniel 8 are clearly stated as Media and Persia and Grecia.Not only are the kingdoms identified but the major king of Grecia is also identified which allows a firm timeline to be established which does not extend beyond the kingdom of Grecia.



The Roman power is described as the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. It is not described as any entity in Daniel 8.It is only implied as affecting the Grecian ruler described in the passage.

Concerning the Greek power and prophecies which have not been fulfilled,I ask again:

"I pray tell us what these might be."




The verses in question:

Dan 11:
35And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.
36And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
37Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
38But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
39Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

Again we are confused by the statement, "the time of the end".A proper reading and understanding of the passage in question should alleviate this however.There is no indication that the description of events is moving to the days prior to the coming of the Lord.The statement in vs.35,is simply showing that the events being depicted are for a time future to Daniel and that there is a time appointed for them to be concluded i.e., come to an end and this would be the time of the end where these events are concerned.

If this is not understood however there are other portions of the visions and explanations which shed light on the meaning of the term "time of the end".

The phrase,"time of the end", is best explained in Daniel 11 and in Daniel 8,also.

Daniel 11:
27.....for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.

Daniel 8:
19And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.

The time of the end is the time God has appointed for the events described in the vision to be accomplished.

end - ( Strong's,7093) Contracted from ,7112; an extremity; adverbially (with prepositional prefix) after:

From the statements and meaning above it can be seen that the word end can refer to a time after the present but not necessarily at the end of the world.

There is a paucity of very reliable information concerning the events of the time concerned.Rather than assume the events described in the vision were not accomplished by Antiochus IV, because we cannot find, in history,full details of the same,it is best we accept what is sure and leave the rest without explanation.What is certain is that the events take place during the time the kingdom of Grecia was ruling but waning in power.Rome is nowhere seen in this vision as the leading protagonist.

Click to expand...

iamlamad said:

It would seem, by the words of verse 35 that the king in question is finished. "Even to the time of the end" tells us as much. I agree, it is like Daniel copied from his chapter 8 here.
When we look at the words of verse 36, it seems either the king of verse 35 has miraculously revived or this is talking about another king. I believe it is about another king.

Click to expand...

safswan said:

The continuous nature of the description denies this.Look at other portions of the passage and take note of the way the transitions to other kings are done:

Dan 11:
2And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.
3And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.

It is clear that the mighty king is not of the four in the previous verse and that a new king and circumstances are being referred to.

Another transition is seen in the following verses and the change in subject is clear.From the one great king to a description of the king of the south.

Dan 11:
4And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.
5And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.

The following shows a double transition.From the king of the north to the raiser of taxes to the vile person.

Dan 11:
19Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.
20Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.
21And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

From this point the term king is not used again until vs 36 which says:

Dan 11:
36And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

This must be a continuing description of the last king that was named and not another.There is nothing here to denote a transition unlike in the verses given above which clearly shows a transition.

Click to expand...

safswan said:

The phrase,"the time of the end",is the cause of much misunderstanding in the book of Daniel.

The following contains an explanation of the most likely meaning of the term.
Where is the Evidence of a Gap in the 70 weeks of Dan 9?

The following explains why the vision of Daniel 8 and by extension Daniel 9 and Daniel 11 cannot extend beyond the time of the Grecian empire.
Where is the Evidence of a Gap in the 70 weeks of Dan 9?






I believe the evidence in the vision may have influenced their beliefs rather than just a cryptic type phrase in scripture.

Click to expand...

safswan said:

You have it wrong again.Read what was written:

"A basic reading and understanding of the passage denies this.The phrase was introduced in reference to what had transpired in the verses prior to and including verse 35.The, "some of them of understanding shall fall",is in reference to what had occurred before which was:....."

Being for a time appointed refers to all of the vision and specific actions would occur at the end of this appointed period i.e. the time of the end.Notice what was said in Daniel 8 about the same events:

Dan 8:
17So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

I only quoted from verse 30 to give a context to what I was referring to.Again your lack of understanding rears its ugly head.

And again:

"Dan 11:
35And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.
All of this is in reference to what had transpired before this statement, and hence cannot be a transition as you claim,since you also say these verses have been fulfilled in every detail."

And also:

"There is no transition in verse 35(not vs.36) which contains the phrase you quote.This is a concluding statement,commenting on what had transpired before and hence is saying,all that was said prior to this statement,is yet for a time appointed i.e. for the time of the end.It does not say the following is for "a time appointed" ,or for,
"the time of the end",but points to all as being for that time."

It is your and the invention of others which see a transition when there is none.Even if,as you say, the clause applied to the sentence which it terminated,then you have simply confirmed your conundrum. Read the passages containing the sentence:

Dan 11:
34Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
35And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

The sentence terminated refers to events prior to verse 36,which you say have been fulfilled and in fact does not refer to the events after the terminating point and hence this cannot be any point of transition.

Verse 36 transitions,not into the future nor in anyway refers back to verse 35,but,into a further description of the events which would occur.Read it here:

Dan 11:
36And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

There is no jump into our future except in your imagination.

Click to expand...

ebedmelech said:

I hold that Daniel 11:36 remains to be about Antiochus Epiphanes.

Click to expand...

iamlamad said:

I see what you are saying but I simple disagree. I did notice that God chose not to call Antiochus a king!

Click to expand...

DavidPT said:

When I get time I might look into the links you submitted. Thanks for posting them. Maybe I will find them helpful, maybe I won't. Just don't know yet.

Click to expand...

Biblewriter said:

Wrest the passage as you will, you cannot get around the HARD FACT that everything in the entire account was literally fulfilled, down to the tiniest detail, clear down through verse 34, and none of the account from verse 36 to the end of the chapter has ever been fulfilled, other than a few events that approximately match the wording in exceedingly general terms.

Click to expand...

safswan said:

You,in your limited knowledge,are very presumptuous to make that claim in bold.The fact is;it is a simple reading and understanding of the passage that leads to the truth that there is no transition to another time or entity in either verse 36 or verse 40 as others claim.It is a figment of your imagination to introduce another entity when the passage is a continuing description of an entity previously mentioned.

The following shows examples of transitions from one king to another, which feature is absent from the description in verses 36 onwards.

Where is the Evidence of a Gap in the 70 weeks of Dan 9?

The fact that the historical accounts of the events,depicted in verses 36 onward,are limited,should not lead us to inventing solutions which deny the basic reading and comprehension of the passage.This is what you and many others have done.

Click to expand...

Biblewriter said:

Actually, you are the one that is denying the basic reading and comprehension of the passage.

And your claim that "the historical accounts of the events, depicted in verse 36 onward are limited" is factually incorrect. We know just as much about the events after this time, if not more. The HARD FACT is, that the explicit fulfillment of EVERY DETAIL of the account ENDED at verse 36. Thereafter, the only "fulfillment" that can be claimed is grossly approximate "fulfillments," which are not fulfillments at all, in any rational sense.

This is typical of the claims made by those who are simply unwilling to believe what the Bible so very explicitly says will come to pass.

Click to expand...

ebedmelech said:

Daniel 11:36-40 can easily be proven to be Antiochus Epiphanes.

Click to expand...

DavidPT said:

When something is easily proven that indicates pretty much everyone would be convinced of it. I'm not convinced. There are countless others not convinced as well.

Click to expand...