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

[DavidPT]

Amen! this would actually fit with the greek word.

There is an issue with sequence, If what they are saying is true, And Jesus is the one who confirmed the covenant, The passage would say something like after 69th week, He (the messiah) confirmed a covenant with the many for 1 week. In the middle of that week, Messiah was cut off. bringing an end to sacrifice and burnt offering. After this the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and sanctuary, committing the abomination which causes desolation. (which would have happened LONG after the 70 weeks were already completed 3.5 years AFTER jesus died and rose again.) Plus we are missing parts of the passage which now no longer fit.

As to my view of Daniel 9:27 in particular, all of that verse involves the 70th week. IOW none of it involves anything outside of the 70th week. That of course creates a major problem if Christ is found in that verse.

and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

That can't fit with a time involving Christ's death and resurrection, therefore this clearly tells us Christ can't be meant in verse 27 then. The way many try and get around this, some of verse 27 involves the 70th week, just not all of it. But if all of it does involve the 70th week, it seems ludicrous to find Christ in that verse then.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

No, no gap.
Absurd and totally fraudulent idea.

what is absurd is reading the passage and trying to fit all which is said into a 7 year period, which is impossible. Even the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD proves there is a Gap.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

There are two Israels. That is why Paul refers to two Israels, and why he uses the typology of Esau and Jacob, the twins, who flipped the birthright.
Spiritual Israel, represented by Jacob, is the Church, who inherit the birthright.
Physical Israel, represented by Esau, are presently still
Blinded by and under the Law, and they forfeited the birthright. The genetic argument is Not germane here as anyone could become an Israelite under the Law. Anyone, be they Israelite or other, who follows Judaism, is an Israelite of the flesh, by assimilation.

The curve-ball that causes so much trouble is Zionism. These people are not Jews, i.e. They are not physical Israel. Why?
Because Israel was under a mandatory punishment; the scattering, the 'diaspora', was a punishment mandated by The Old Covenant, (Levitical and Mosaic), and it cannot be annulled arbitrarily by man. The Zionists, by returning to Israel when they should have been in diaspora, pending God's next judgement or decree, have flouted the Law and ceased to be under it.

oh boy.

Esau has never represented Isreal. Esau is represented by Edom, which is a nation which in the last book of the OT God said he loved less than Jacob (as it says, Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated)

Pauls point was that Israel was chosen BEFORE Esau, even though by right, Esau was born first. To prove God does not do things the way Man thinks, he can do whatever he wills. And also to prove that it was not by the will or birth of man that Isreal was chosen, because God chose them as a nation BEFORE the child "Jacob" was born

 

[Eternally Grateful]

That interpretation is possible only if the verses are scrambled around, to be rewritten.

And to think that Titus has a function to be in the 70 weeks. What difference would it make of who was the leader of the Romans when the Romans destroyed the temple and city?

If it were a referral to Titus as being the prince, it would not be necessary to say "the people of", and just say the prince who shall come will destroy the city and sanctuary.

Thank you, I was going to bring this up Also. Titus destroyed the city, You would never say the people of a prince, you would call out the prince, because the prince led the people and it was by his order they did what they did.

 

[DaDad]

Where's the gap? ...

Please address the Newton premise.

And please cease your defamatory "gap" accusation.



To All,
Why, when the intellect fails, does "human nature" resort to defamation? Apparently "Dave L" cannot resolve the Newton premise, and then diverts attention form the subject by accusing me of some "gap" theory.
And they call themselves "Christians".
Thanks,
DaDad

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I agree in principle. But I think it was also that Antiochus had a statue image of Zeus placed in the temple - and that is what the abomination of desolation in the end times will be in similitude - if not exact, a statue image of Zeus.

What gets me is Jesus said we would see the abomination of desolation STANDING in the holy place. That was impossible in 70 AD. You would have to be in the room, before it was destroyed, Before you saw it, And titus would never let the disciples in the room to see the abomination which was standing.

Many people believe it will be a statue of the king himself As he declares himself to basically be the messiah the world was waiting for.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Your argument is valid.

People read only Matthew 24 and not Luke 21, hence they do not see the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies in 70 AD.

I have read both passages, Neither passage shows that Daniels prophesies could have been fulfilled in 70 ad. Which would be OUTSIDE the 70 week period.

I think the issue is people interpret it based on beliefs,

 

[DaDad]

what is absurd is reading the passage and trying to fit all which is said into a 7 year period, which is impossible. Even the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD proves there is a Gap.

Hmmmmm. -- So history demonstrates the ~impossibility~ of an ancient fulfillment? Perhaps the angel was correct in the 12:4 & 9 guidance AFTER ALL.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Eternally Grateful said: ↑
so the jews can not trace their blood to abraham?

All of the middle east can trace their blood to Abraham.

Reminds me of this thread

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...in-luke-16-24-calling-out-to-abraham.8071118/
Why is the Rich-Man in Luke 16:24 calling out to Abraham?

http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Lazarus

Luke 16:24
And he sounding said--Father Abraham! be thou merciful to me! and send Lazarus!
that he should be dipping the tip of the finger of him of water, and should be cooling down the tongue of me,
--that I am being pained in this flame/phlox<5395>

John 8:
37 I know that seed of Abraham ye are,
but ye are seeking Me to kill because My word has no place within ye
39 “Abraham is our father,” they replied.
“If ye were children of Abraham,” said Jesus, “you would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye are trying to kill Me, a Man Who has told ye the truth that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing.
41 Ye are doing the works of the father of ye”
“We are not illegitimate children,” they declared. “Our only Father is God Himself.”
42 Jesus said to them, “If God Father of ye, ye would love Me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on My own, but He sent Me.

 

[DaDad]

... I think the issue is people interpret it based on beliefs,

I would have used "imaginations"...

 

[jgr]

Of course NOT. The text has been twisted and skewed by the Commentators to achieve a "Jesus" agenda. Daniel's prophecies are for the END TIME, period. -- Of course Daniel has to cover the span of empires, but the prophecies themselves are END TIME.

Follow the 12:4 & 9 INSTRUCTIONS.

Thanks,
DaDad

Daniel 9:24 has been twisted to achieve a "Jesus" agenda?

Even the dispens agree that it's about Jesus. They just don't believe that He's fulfilled it yet.

If it's not about Jesus, who's it about?

The end times began at Jesus first coming (Hebrews 1:1,2). That's when He fulfilled the Daniel 9 prophecies.

All of the twisting and skewing has occurred within the last less than 200 years to deny a Jesus agenda.

 

[DavidPT]

Thank you, I was going to bring this up Also. Titus destroyed the city, You would never say the people of a prince, you would call out the prince, because the prince led the people and it was by his order they did what they did.

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.


What I find interesting is that some opponents of the gap theory at least admit the pronouns in verse 27 are referring to the prince meant here. You would think that solves it then, but no, what do these same ones then do? They claim the prince meant here is meaning Jesus the Messiah. The translators of the KJV apparently didn't think so though, otherwise they would have put prince in capital letters the way they did in verse 25. This doesn't automatically prove that the prince here isn't meaning Christ then, but it at least shows that centuries ago, whenever this was initially translated, there were some at the time who apparently saw 2 different princes between verses 25 and 26.

 

[jgr]

What gets me is Jesus said we would see the abomination of desolation STANDING in the holy place. That was impossible in 70 AD. You would have to be in the room, before it was destroyed, Before you saw it, And titus would never let the disciples in the room to see the abomination which was standing.

Many people believe it will be a statue of the king himself As he declares himself to basically be the messiah the world was waiting for.

Still ignoring Luke 21:20, eh?

 

[DaDad]

Daniel 9:24 has been twisted to achieve a "Jesus" agenda?

And once again, -- Newton observed:

We avoid also the doing violence to the language of Daniel, by taking the seven weeks and sixty two weeks for one number. Had that been Daniel’s meaning, he would have said sixty and nine weeks, and not seven weeks and sixty two weeks, a way of numbering used by no nation.​

So the RSV is the CORRECT Version:

25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off
​

Thus TWO arrivals of Jesus. Is one an older brother, or are there TWO manifestations?

... and this is only the beginning of the difficulties of the Classical Commentary version(s).


OTHERWISE, -- Please provide a precedent, ANY PRECEDENT, for a pair of shoes costing "seven and sixty-two dollars plus tax".

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[A71]

@DaDad

The problems with the Classical Interpretation can be summed up as follows (not inclusively):

1. Daniel 9:2 specifies "years".
Daniel was writing in 538BC. The 70 year Babylonian Captivity - Jeremiah 25 & 29, had ended. Now Israel could, according to Jeremiah, return to their land. Unfortunately the Temple had been destroyed 588BC, so Daniel wanted the people to get back and restore it before 518BC

2. Daniel 9:2 does not use the simple shama to perceive the prophecy of Jeremiah as though reading that book, but rather the Solomon biyn to perceive the prophecy in the BOOKS.

Can you elaborate, please?

3. Daniel 9:25 "going forth of the word" does NOT have the inference of any edict from man, but rather an edict directly from GOD.

Ezra 5, Zechariah 6, Haggai 1 - the command came from God as well as Darius

4. The Daniel 9:25 seven is one duration with an anointed one "coming" after that duration.
Agree

5. The Daniel 9:25-26 sixty-two weeks is a second duration with a second anointed one who is cut off after that duration.
Agree
6. The "weeks"/"week" are the inconcise Masculine gender text, which are specifically NOT 490 years.

The captivity was 70 years, which is ten weeks. The punishment was then multiplied sevenfold, See Leviticus 26, which made 490 years. And shabuwa can actually mean a 'period of seven', meaning years. The Hebrew speaking rabbis all also understand it as 490 years

7. The second anointed one who is cut off is not killed upon the sixty-two, but simply AFTER.

Or simply cut off

8. The destroyer does not come at the beginning, middle, or upon the end of the seventieth shabuwa, but "shall come" after the seventieth shabuwa.

How? In the middle of the week he destroys the Temple

9. The seven, the sixty-two, the seventieth, and after the seventieth are chronologically connected, with NO ~2,000 year gaps.
Agree
10. This prophecy is shut up and sealed until the time of the end, which is approximate to 1948.

The end means the end of The Temple, the Levitical system and the land of Israel. This answer applies to the below point as well
​

It all stems from not following the angel's instructions in 12:4 & 9. The ENTIRE BOOK of Daniel's prophecies are END TIME.

But the Commentators have to "earn their living", so they made up a story for each of the prophetic Chapters and sold it to dupes like you and me. But I found the TRUTH in end-time HISTORY, -- approximate to 1948. And you too can find the TRUTH about these Chapters if you're willing to examine the failures of the Commentators, and actually see what Scripture SAYS.

With Best Regards,
DaDad[/QUOTE]

 

[DavidPT]

Still ignoring Luke 21:20, eh?

As to that, it could be referring to the following? I'm not saying it 100% is, but that it could possibly be referring to that.


Daniel 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.

If we go to Luke 21 we see this after that verse.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations : and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

If we go back to Daniel 11, we see this after that verse in that chapter, the one I submitted above.

Daniel 11:33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword , and by flame, by captivity , and by spoil, many days.

Scripture interpreting Scripture, the many days meant in Daniel 11:33 might be meaning---and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled---that according to Luke 21:24.

 

[A71]

what is absurd is reading the passage and trying to fit all which is said into a 7 year period, which is impossible. Even the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD proves there is a Gap.

The Romans were very efficient. In one of their campaigns, in Romania, they spent several years building a bridge in order to march forward.
Their 7 year campaign in Judea was absolutely brutal, and ruthlessly efficient. Josephus says it was the bloodiest, most violent, most savage campaign in history. In those seven years they did indeed gut Judea like a fish, and cut off the head too.

 

[Dave L]

Please address the Newton premise.

And please cease your defamatory "gap" accusation.



To All,
Why, when the intellect fails, does "human nature" resort to defamation? Apparently "Dave L" cannot resolve the Newton premise, and then diverts attention form the subject by accusing me of some "gap" theory.
And they call themselves "Christians".
Thanks,
DaDad

If you cannot produce a scriptural reference supporting a gap, you are wasting my time and yours.

 

[DaDad]

1. Daniel 9:2 specifies "years".
Daniel was writing in 538BC. The 70 year Babylonian Captivity - Jeremiah 25 & 29, had ended. Now Israel could, according to Jeremiah, return to their land. Unfortunately the Temple had been destroyed 588BC, so Daniel wanted the people to get back and restore it before 518BC

The durations ARE "years", with only the last "year" being a "week" of years.

2. Daniel 9:2 does not use the simple shama to perceive the prophecy of Jeremiah as though reading that book, but rather the Solomon biyn to perceive the prophecy in the BOOKS.
Can you elaborate, please?

1 Kings 3 provides the context for what Solomon asked for (shama) versus what he received (biyn). Thus one must find the solution for the Seventy Weeks in the Book of Psalms.

3. Daniel 9:25 "going forth of the word" does NOT have the inference of any edict from man, but rather an edict directly from GOD.
Ezra 5, Zechariah 6, Haggai 1 - the command came from God as well as Darius

Psalms 24 is the "decree" DIRECTLY from GOD.

4. The Daniel 9:25 seven is one duration with an anointed one "coming" after that duration.
Agree
5. The Daniel 9:25-26 sixty-two weeks is a second duration with a second anointed one who is cut off after that duration.
Agree

Then there are TWO "anointed ones", -- one after the "seven" and a second after the "sixty-two". So did Jesus have an older brother, or possibly TWO manifestations?

6. The "weeks"/"week" are the inconcise Masculine gender text, which are specifically NOT 490 years.

The captivity was 70 years, which is ten weeks. The punishment was then multiplied sevenfold, See Leviticus 26, which made 490 years. And shabuwa can actually mean a 'period of seven', meaning years. The Hebrew speaking rabbis all also understand it as 490 years​

​

Young, Keil, & Kliefoth agree:

“... as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’”​

“...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keil and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.”
John Wolvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, pp. 217, 218
​

Thus the answer can be ANY number EXCEPT 490.

7. The second anointed one who is cut off is not killed upon the sixty-two, but simply AFTER.
Or simply cut off

Fulfilled as an assassination of Rabin on November of 1995.

8. The destroyer does not come at the beginning, middle, or upon the end of the seventieth shabuwa, but "shall come" after the seventieth shabuwa.
How? In the middle of the week he destroys the Temple

You're assuming conclusions which are not in the text.

9. The seven, the sixty-two, the seventieth, and after the seventieth are chronologically connected, with NO ~2,000 year gaps.
Agree

10. This prophecy is shut up and sealed until the time of the end, which is approximate to 1948.
The end means the end of The Temple, the Levitical system and the land of Israel. This answer applies to the below point as well

Ummm, NO. The end-time is approximate to 1948.

Hope this helps,
DaDad

​

 

[Dave L]

​

The durations ARE "years", with only the last "year" being a "week" of years.

​

1 Kings 3 provides the context for what Solomon asked for (shama) versus what he received (biyn). Thus one must find the solution for the Seventy Weeks in the Book of Psalms.

​

Psalms 24 is the "decree" DIRECTLY from GOD.

​

Then there are TWO "anointed ones", -- one after the "seven" and a second after the "sixty-two". So did Jesus have an older brother, or possibly TWO manifestations?

​

Young, Keil, & Kliefoth agree:

“... as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’”​

“...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keil and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.”
John Wolvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, pp. 217, 218
​

Thus the answer can be ANY number EXCEPT 490.

​

Fulfilled as an assassination of Rabin on November of 1995.

​

You're assuming conclusions which are not in the text.

​

Ummm, NO. The end-time is approximate to 1948.

Hope this helps,
DaDad

​

All of what you say is based on a non-existent gap.