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

[Douggg]

yet the end shall be at the time appointed.

It is just saying that there are parts of Daniel 11, Daniel 8 are appointed to happen at the the time of the end.

 

[Douggg]

If this has anything to do with the coming of the Lord then you are mistaken.If it disconnected from the previous 69 weeks then you are also mistaken.

Who are the 70 weeks determined on?

Who is attacked by Gog/Magog in the latter days?

 

[DavidPT]

It amazed me also,when studying the issue,as to how a prophecy about 70 weeks could become one of 69 + a yet to be determined length of time and still be a prophecy of 70 weeks.

It's pretty simple logic. During the gap none of the weeks are still being counted. It might be like someone getting sentenced to 40 hours community service. If they do 4 hours a day the first week, that being Monday through Friday, then don't do any during the weekend. Then resume on Monday with another 4 hours, followed by 4 hours on Tue through Friday, this would obviously indicate numerous gaps throughout. And since there would be gaps, would anyone really think 40 hours were never really served?

The following proves the 70 weeks have not been fulfilled yet.

Daniel 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.

Seventy weeks are determined---upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression,''The holy city is obviously meaning Jerusalem. When the transgression is finished against the holy city the following will be the results.

Zechariah 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

In 70 AD men were indeed dwelling in it, but was Jerusalem safely inhabited? Of course not. This tells us Zechariah 14:11 is meaning a time post 70 AD. And the events of 70 AD also tell us the fulfillment of the 70 weeks is meaning post 70 AD as well. How can we know for certain? Well you don't have the transgression entirely finished, in regards to Jerusalem, then a number of years later you have this same place utterly destroyed. That's nonsensical.

 

[safswan]

It is just saying that there are parts of Daniel 11, Daniel 8 are appointed to happen at the the time of the end.

No one can however show where this transition takes place.Can you?
The passage in fact describes the entire vision as being for the time of the end.Read it here:

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.

And this is another reason why the phrase does not mean at the time when Jesus returns.The understanding gained from the passage itself and the timeline evidence will leave no doubt about the time being referred to.

 

[safswan]

It's pretty simple logic. During the gap none of the weeks are still being counted. It might be like someone getting sentenced to 40 hours community service. If they do 4 hours a day the first week, that being Monday through Friday, then don't do any during the weekend. Then resume on Monday with another 4 hours, followed by 4 hours on Tue through Friday, this would obviously indicate numerous gaps throughout. And since there would be gaps, would anyone really think 40 hours were never really served?

Anyone with who thinks carefully about this should rubbish this theory without a second thought.This theory of a gap is the invention of men who believe they are helping God but are in fact causing reproach with such a theory.

There is no precedence in scripture for a time prophecy to take a break and resume at another time.The time would not then be 70 weeks,but 69 + a yet to be determined time.Do you think is would have been too hard for God to determine that time and then place it in the vision as it truly is?It is men who misunderstand various terms used in the passage who have devised such a theory which has no basis in scripture.

 

[safswan]

Who are the 70 weeks determined on?

Dan 9:
24Seventy 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.

Who is attacked by Gog/Magog in the latter days?

Not sure what this has to do with a prophecy about the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple after the Babylonian captivity and its further desecration by Antiochus IV.

 

[DavidPT]

Anyone with who thinks carefully about this should rubbish this theory without a second thought.This theory of a gap is the invention of men who believe they are helping God but are in fact causing reproach with such a theory.

There is no precedence in scripture for a time prophecy to take a break and resume at another time.The time would not then be 70 weeks,but 69 + a yet to be determined time.Do you think is would have been too hard for God to determine that time and then place it in the vision as it truly is?It is men who misunderstand various terms used in the passage who have devised such a theory which has no basis in scripture.

IOW you find it perfectly reasonable for the transgression against Jerusalem to be entirely finished, then a number of years later, utterly destroy this same place?

 

[Douggg]

Not sure what this has to do with a prophecy about the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple after the Babylonian captivity and its further desecration by Antiochus IV.

The 70 weeks are determined on Israel and Jerusalem.

You are contending that the last week of the 70 weeks is not disconnected. But there are the 7 years (the 70th week) following the attack on Israel by Gog/Magog in the latter days, in Ezekiel 39. Which would be the 7 years. And that the dealing with Israel in Daniel 9 is still not complete, until those 7 years are over.

The confirming of the covenant in Daniel 9:27 by the prince who shall come is referring to the Mt. Sinai covenant, which Daniel had confessed his forefathers broke in the first part of Daniel 9 - and contains a requirement by Moses for all future leaders of Israel to confirm on a 7 year basis in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

The problem is both the little horn and the king in Daniel 11:36 is not the King of Israel in those verses. And in Revelation 17, the 7 kings and the 8th king the beast are associated with the Roman Empire, and not with Israel.

Antiochus was not time of the end. Nor was he a Roman king.

But the prophecies do fit when one understands that the person will be both the King of Israel, and the King of the Roman empire.

Gog/Magog is on my chart, and the 7 years in Ezekiel 39, are the same 7 years that begins when the person confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant. Basically it will be a big speech from the temple mount, by the Antichrist, that God gave the land of Israel to the children of Israel as theirs forever.

The Jews rejected Jesus and are looking for someone else to be their King of Israel. The person from Europe will appear to be the one to them. Until he betrays them and the covenant, when he claims to have achieved God-hood. And ends up being the beast in Revelation. The Jews will turn to Jesus at that point.

 

[Biblewriter]

This is the mantra of all those who deny the basic reading and comprehension of the passage in question and in their attempts to uphold bible and prophetic inerrancy they support the errors you and many others make.Since they are unable to prove,conclusively from the available historical sources,the fulfillment of verses 36 onward, they invent the story of this being about the future and so believe they have successfully answered the critics.

The simple fact however is that,the passage in no way supports a jump into the future.That is obvious to many and hence some even say the imaginary transition takes place at verse 40.Neither is supported by the basic reading and comprehension of the passage.

No one is able to show the transition from the passage but simply claim it must be so because of the difficulty in matching the historical sources with scripture.I can do no such thing and remain honest to myself and to basic reading and comprehension.The passage has evidence of transitions from one king to another but this is not found from verse 21 to the end.This can only be a description of one king unless something is missing from the passage.Here again is the evidence of the transitions:
Where is the Evidence of a Gap in the 70 weeks of Dan 9?

For those who claim this is a description of the final anti-christ or the man of sin there is even more evidence that this is a colossal error.In both Daniel 2,and Daniel 7,at the conclusion of the events described, the coming of God's kingdom occurs.

Dan 2:
44And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
45Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.


Dan 7:
12As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
13I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

There is nothing of this sort in this passage and the king described comes to his end and there is no description of the coming of the Lord bringing the king's reign to end.

Dan 11:
44But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.
45And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.


With all this in mind,one of the hard fact is really nothing at all and can have no bearing on the primary interpretation of the passage.All who do otherwise have invented stories not supported by the basic reading and comprehension of the passage.

Your "basic reading and comprehension of the passage" is seriously deficient. I have shown that the phrase "even to the time of the end" refers to the statement just made. Your arguments that this refers to all that had been said previously is basically a defiance of both grammar and logic.

And the events of recorded history indeed agree with the conclusion that there is a jump at verse 35. Your pretension that this is basically an argument from silence is mere sophistry. When every detail up to that point was fulfilled, exactly as written, and after that point the same applies to not a single sentence, is indeed a very significant fact, regardless of your denials.

As to your arguments about the other passages of Daniel, they are no better. They are nothing but a flailing attempt to escape the unified testimony of the Holy Spirit, speaking throughout Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets, as well as in much of the New Testament.

 

[Biblewriter]

Biblewriter, please spare me this. Just for the sake of argument...can you answer why the "scholars" of Jesus day didn't acknowledge Him as messiah? Are you getting my drift?

Actually, no, I do not get your drift.

 

[Biblewriter]

Anyone with who thinks carefully about this should rubbish this theory without a second thought.This theory of a gap is the invention of men who believe they are helping God but are in fact causing reproach with such a theory.

If this is even close to correct, they why did every Christian who wrote about this passage within 150 years of the destruction of Jerusalem (and whose writings have survived to the present) conclude that there was a gap before the seventieth week? They knew that the hard facts of history proved that there was a gap.

 

[ebedmelech]

Actually, no, I do not get your drift.

My "drift" is, if the scholars of Jesus day had it wrong (and most of them did, certainly scholars of today can be wrong about as well as Antiochus and "the gap". Scholars are to be tested just as teachers are to be tested.

 

[Douggg]

No one can however show where this transition takes place.Can you?
The passage in fact describes the entire vision as being for the time of the end.Read it here:

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.

Yes, I can show where the transition is to the time of the end.

19 And 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.

So the angel gets started...

20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

We are not in any sort of disagreement to this point, okay?

22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. (Alexander's kingdom broke up, 300-200 BC)

Nor with the above.

23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

Verse 23 is end times and dealing, not with four kingdoms in verse 22, but one kingdom in the end times - that of the transgressors. Back in Daniel 7, the transgressors would correspond to the ten kings that will arise out of the fourth kingdom, and the little horn king there is the little horn king in Daniel 8.

Coming to the full just means all ten kings are in place, assumingly after three of them have been "subdued", as per Daniel 7:24. "stands up" is an idiom for preparing to go to war.

Verse 23 is the transition verse. Verse 22 is historic to us, back around 300 BC.
_______________________________________________________________

The kingdom in verse 23 is the EU. It says in the latter time of their (the transgressors') kingdom when the transgressors have to come to a full, the king of fierce countenance will stand up

The EU has gone through several stages of development. We are nearing the latter time of the EU, but the ten kings (not necessarily ten nations), leader form of Government is not in place yet. That's what to watch for over there.

 

[Biblewriter]

My "drift" is, if the scholars of Jesus day had it wrong (and most of them did, certainly scholars of today can be wrong about as well as Antiochus and "the gap". Scholars are to be tested just as teachers are to be tested.

I COMPLETELY agree with THAT.

 

[DavidPT]

My "drift" is, if the scholars of Jesus day had it wrong (and most of them did, certainly scholars of today can be wrong about as well as Antiochus and "the gap". Scholars are to be tested just as teachers are to be tested.

Allow me to try and explain something here. If the 70th week HAS to involve a rebuilt temple where animal sacrificing resumes then is stopped mid week, then in that case, I couldn't agree either, that the 70th week is still future. The idea of those things literally happening in our future is utterly ludicrous IMO.

Fortunately there is more than one way to understand some of these things. IOW these events don't have to involve literal temples in order for these events to still be in our future. Take the temple of God mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2, for example. The 70th week will be involving that, yet it won't be involving a literal temple in the literal city of Jerusalem though. Jerusalem is not even mentioned anywhere in that chapter one single time, nor can one find a hint of Jerusalem in the contexts that this will be involving Jerusalem in the ME.

 

[ebedmelech]

Allow me to try and explain something here. If the 70th week HAS to involve a rebuilt temple where animal sacrificing resumes then is stopped mid week, then in that case, I couldn't agree either, that the 70th week is still future. The idea of those things literally happening in our future is utterly ludicrous IMO.

Fortunately there is more than one way to understand some of these things. IOW these events don't have to involve literal temples in order for these events to still be in our future. Take the temple of God mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2, for example. The 70th week will be involving that, yet it won't be involving a literal temple in the literal city of Jerusalem though. Jerusalem is not even mentioned anywhere in that chapter one single time, nor can one find a hint of Jerusalem in the contexts that this will be involving Jerusalem in the ME.

That there's more than one way to understand is not the issue. The issue is to gain the understanding the prophecy. The 70th week has no gap...Daniel 9:24 tells all that happens in the 70 weeks of years. Nothing remains.

 

[jgr]

Allow me to try and explain something here. If the 70th week HAS to involve a rebuilt temple where animal sacrificing resumes then is stopped mid week, then in that case, I couldn't agree either, that the 70th week is still future. The idea of those things literally happening in our future is utterly ludicrous IMO.

Fortunately there is more than one way to understand some of these things. IOW these events don't have to involve literal temples in order for these events to still be in our future. Take the temple of God mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2, for example. The 70th week will be involving that, yet it won't be involving a literal temple in the literal city of Jerusalem though. Jerusalem is not even mentioned anywhere in that chapter one single time, nor can one find a hint of Jerusalem in the contexts that this will be involving Jerusalem in the ME.

Paul's references to "temple" in his epistles are exclusively spiritual, referring both to the individual believer, and collectively to the Church. (1 Corinthians 3:16,17; 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

2 Thessalonians 2 refers to a counterfeit spiritual entity who would occupy a position of, and usurp, spiritual authority within the Church.

History confirms fulfillment in the ensuing emergence of papal Rome, its arrogation of sole and exclusive spiritual authority within the Church, and its descent from noble beginnings into apostasy over the centuries of its dominance.

The process was spiritual, and accomplished independently of any single literal temple.

 

[DavidPT]

Paul's references to "temple" in his epistles are exclusively spiritual, referring both to the individual believer, and collectively to the Church. (1 Corinthians 3:16,17; 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

2 Thessalonians 2 refers to a counterfeit spiritual entity who would occupy a position of, and usurp, spiritual authority within the Church.

History confirms fulfillment in the ensuing emergence of papal Rome, its arrogation of sole and exclusive spiritual authority within the Church, and its descent from noble beginnings into apostasy over the centuries of its dominance.

The process was spiritual, and accomplished independently of any single literal temple.

I'm on the same page with some of what you said, thus agree with you about some of it, meaning what I have underlined. Where I'm not on the same page with you would be in regards to the timing and you indicating it involved the ensuing emergence of papal Rome. IOW, the same way one can't find a single mention of Jerusalem in 2 Thessalonians 2, neither can one find a single mention of papal Rome in that chapter either. So in my mind, one is adding to the text things not present in the text, if they are seeing Jerusalem, or papal Rome in the text, etc.

I'm somewhat on the same page with you about your last sentence, to a degree. Had you said the following instead, I would have been in full agreement----The process IS spiritual, and WILL BE accomplished independently of any single literal temple.

 

[jgr]

I'm on the same page with some of what you said, thus agree with you about some of it, meaning what I have underlined. Where I'm not on the same page with you would be in regards to the timing and you indicating it involved the ensuing emergence of papal Rome. IOW, the same way one can't find a single mention of Jerusalem in 2 Thessalonians 2, neither can one find a single mention of papal Rome in that chapter either. So in my mind, one is adding to the text things not present in the text, if they are seeing Jerusalem, or papal Rome in the text, etc.

I'm somewhat on the same page with you about your last sentence, to a degree. Had you said the following instead, I would have been in full agreement----The process IS spiritual, and WILL BE accomplished independently of any single literal temple.

You're correct; there is no explicit mention of papal Rome. However, as Paul declared in v. 7, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work", i.e. the seeds of apostasy were already being sown.

The recognition of that apostasy, as the fulfillment of 2 Thess. 2 and other Scripture, was a foundational driver of the Reformation.

 

[safswan]

IOW you find it perfectly reasonable for the transgression against Jerusalem to be entirely finished, then a number of years later, utterly destroy this same place?

The basis of the interpretation of the passage in question cannot be some cryptic type phrase.The basis must be the timeline given in the passage.I have shown previously that the vision of Daniel 8 which is entirely about Antiochus IV is what is being further explained in Daniel 9.

Daniel had written:

Daniel 8:
27And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.

Did God leave Daniel in the dark?No and hence:

Daniel 9:
21Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
22And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
23At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

Which vision do you believe is being referred to?I understand it to be the vision of Daniel 8.Since there was no temple in existence at this time then Daniel would be confused about what and when this vision is about.The explanation given by the angel tells how and when the temple would be rebuilt and how it would be further desecrated by the entity in the vision and also of the demise of the desolater or desolate one.

Hence the statement, "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",must be understood in this light.