The 1260 Year Interpretation of Protestantism

[John317]

Here's the text:

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.

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.

9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

It says the Messiah [or annointed one] the Prince was to come after 7 + 60 + 2 weeks. That means the Messiah will come after 69 weeks. This period ended in 27 AD. That is when Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit and commenced His public ministry.

Daniel 9:26-- 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.

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.

Jesus confirmed the covenant with the Jewish people for one week, that is between 27 and 34 A.D.

But in the middle of the last week, or in 31 AD, Christ was killed and thus caused the sacrifices and offerings to cease. The last week, or the last 7 years, ended in 34 AD., at which time the gospel went to the Gentiles.

Originally Posted By: miz3

This cannot be for at least two reasons:

1. You are assuming the nonexistent year/day.

And you keep claiming that it is nonexistent when it is plain as the nose on your face that it does indeed exist.

Without it, the prophecy makes no sense. With it, however, the prophecy points out the precise fulfillment of Christ's first coming.

Mark 1:14, 15-- Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

What "time" was fufilled?

Originally Posted By: miz3

2. Only a bad ruler would confirm the covenant for a week and then renig on that agreement half way through. Jesus Christ never did that.

This shows you don't understand what the text is saying.

It means that Jesus confirmed the covenant with the Jews as God's special people for one more week-- that is, for seven more years, or until 34 AD. God gave the Jews a probationary period of a total of 490 years from the time of the going forth of the command to rebuild Jerusalem, which command went forth in BC 457.

When Christ was anointed of the Holy Spirit in 27 AD, the Jews were given until 34 AD to fulfill God's plan for them. But, sadly, as a nation, they rejected God's plan both by rejecting the Messiah and then by rejecting the proclamation of the gospel of Christ. We find that recorded in Acts 7 and 8.

[12tribes]

This cannot be for at least two reasons:

1. You are assuming the nonexistent year/day.

2. Only a bad ruler would confirm the covenant for a week and then renig on that agreement half way through. Jesus Christ never did that.

When Jesus Christ died the Jewish Nation was already Rejected by God.

a. the triumphal entry when Jesus wept for Jerusalem. You don't weep for something that has not happened yet especially when it could go either way but you weep for something that already is.

b. Jesus told them they were still guilty in their sins.

c. Jesus already told them that their house was left desolate.

All past tense. Jesus Christ never referred to the Jews as having any more probation. Thus, no 34AD as some cut off date.

Are we expected to believe your word or the Bible?

[12tribes]

What does Daniel chapter nine mean?

Daniel tells us the purpose of his prayer and the desire of heart.

1. To confess his, Daniel’s, sins.

2. To confess the sins of his people, the Jews, the Children of Israel.

3. Request of God for the “Restoration” of Judah (holy hill).

To understand Daniel chapter nine it is vital that we keep these three objectives in mind. Why? Because God gives Daniel an answer to all Daniel’s questions.

God sends Gabriel while Daniel was still praying to give Daniel an answer. In fact Gabriel in verse twenty-two tells Daniel the very purpose for Gabriel’s mission: To give Daniel insight and understanding.

About what?

About Daniel’s three objectives, that is what.

In verse twenty-three Gabriel states that God intends to give Daniel an answer the moment Daniel began to pray. God already knew what was on Daniel’s heart even before Daniel expressed it in prayer.

Verse twenty-three gives Daniel the answer to Daniels first objective which was to confess his, Daniel’s, own sins. To which Gabriel responds by telling Daniel that he, Daniel, is “highly esteemed”. In other words, Daniel your sins are forgiven and you pure in the sight of God.

Then Gabriel tells Daniel the answers to the other two questions.

First of these regarded the “sin of my people Israel”?

To which Gabriel tells Daniel that Israel will have “Seventy ‘sevens’” to clean up their act, so to speak.

Just what are the “seventy ‘sevens’”?

Reading the Bible just as it is written means that “seventy ‘sevens’” is seventy weeks (a seven is one week in the reality of our time as God made it at creation). How much is seventy weeks. Approx. one point four years.

This seventy weeks is all God is giving the Children of Israel to “clean up their act” and remain as God’s People.

Questions still remain:

1. When will Israel get this chance probation to “clean up its act”?

2. When is the restoration of Israel to begin?

3. What will happen? Will Israel succeed in restoring “Righteousness”

Gabriel answers all these questions.

The probationary period starts from the “issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem”.

Notice also that an “anointed one” will also come after “seven ‘sevens’ or seven weeks have elapsed. In addition to this there will be sixty-two more weeks before the next event.

Jerusalem will indeed be rebuilt (a fact that was of great interest to Daniel because Daniel was asking this very thing) with streets and a trench. However the rebuilding will take place under great stress.

After the sixty-two week period has elapsed the “anointed one” who came after the first seven ‘sevens’ (seven weeks) will be “cut off and have nothing”. What does this mean?

It could mean a number of things.

1. The “anointed one” is killed.

2. The “anointed one” loses his power and is isolated.

3. Both two and three.

This ends any talk about the “anointed one”. Everything after this has nothing to do with the “anointed one”.

Next Gabriel tells Daniel that the “ruler” of the people will come and destroy the city and the sanctuary. Who is this “ruler”?

Is this ruler a pagan from outside of Judah? Is this ruler a Jew from inside Daniel’s people?

The Bible does not answer this question. Regardless, the Bible does say that during this time there will much war, desolation, and chaos. This is a true statement because as Gabriel in verse twenty-six these things “have been decreed” by God.

Who is the “he” that starts verse twenty-seven? It obviously is the “ruler of the people” who ends the “anointed one’s” power destroys the city and the sanctuary.

What does “destroy the city and the sanctuary” mean? It could mean many things.

1. Physical destruction. (this is the first human thing that comes to mind but it may not be the truth).

2. Spiritual and cessation destruction.

Given the context of Daniel nine it is a Spiritual and cessation type of destruction. This ruler will seem to “confirm the covenant” at first but in the middle of the “week” this evil ruler will put an end to “sacrifice and offering” in addition to polluting the sanctuary.

Gabriel further says that this “ruler” will continue to exist until the time God has decreed for his end.

Thus, Daniel nine is very clear and straight forward.

Do you ever quote the Bible? The Bible needs no interpreter but, you are putting your interpretation on the Bible.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

The New Century Version of the Bible is clearly not a credible Version because it puts things into the Bible that are not written there.

It is clear that the writers of this version were deeply flawed in their work. They bring their slanted views to what they want the Bible to say.

I am shocked that you would find such a version of the bible to be a credible source.

I view the New Century Version as extremely not credible.

The New Century Version is not a literal version, of course. It attempts to simplify, which is OK. All the translations and paraphrases have good aspects. No translation is perfect. Even the Septuagint that the apostles used was a paraphrase in many parts, and not even an accurate paraphrase. It is still the word of God.

The point here is that the NCV got Daniel 9: 24-27 right.

I am sorry John317 but I have to disagree. The NCV did not get it right. They are wrong because there is no year/day thing. They assumed things not in God's Word.

This is typical of "paraphrase" translations.

To cite that all translations are "paraphrases" is misleading. This leaves the wrong impression and opens the door to translations that would undo your own doctrines as an SDA and so you yourself do not accept every translation.

You accept this NCV ONLY BECAUSE IT FITS YOUR DOCTRINE. If it did not fit your doctrine such as the "Catholic" Bible then you would not use it make your point.

John317 at minimum this is sloppy and is also not truthful to use such tactics in order to make your point. Once again you are using tactics that are for debating purposes only and not for really finding the Truth.

Are you aware that such tactics are NOT CHRISTIAN?

John317 I am disappointed that you would stoop to such a low standard.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Third it makes no sense to say the "anointed one" (your word messiah) comes after the 69weeks then to later in verse twenty-six to say after sixty-two weeks this "anointed one" will be cut. That's saying that the "anointed one" is cut off even before he comes. That is complete nonsense.

Fourth thus the "anointed one" shows up after seven weeks and endures until the end of another sixty-two weeks when he is cut off.

Quote:

Here's the text:

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.

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.

9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

It says the Messiah [or annointed one] the Prince was to come after 7 + 60 + 2 weeks. That means the Messiah will come after 69 weeks. This period ended in 27 AD. That is when Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit and commenced His public ministry.

Originally Posted By: miz3

See the answers I gave Lysimachus on these verses.

I did. Your answers make no sense to me.

I am sorry. I pray and hope that someday God will lead you to a correct understanding of His Word.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: John3:17

Here's the text:

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.

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.

9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

It says the Messiah [or annointed one] the Prince was to come after 7 + 60 + 2 weeks. That means the Messiah will come after 69 weeks. This period ended in 27 AD. That is when Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit and commenced His public ministry.

Daniel 9:26-- 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.

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.

Jesus confirmed the covenant with the Jewish people for one week, that is between 27 and 34 A.D.

But in the middle of the last week, or in 31 AD, Christ was killed and thus caused the sacrifices and offerings to cease. The last week, or the last 7 years, ended in 34 AD., at which time the gospel went to the Gentiles.

Originally Posted By: miz3

This cannot be for at least two reasons:

1. You are assuming the nonexistent year/day.

And you keep claiming that it is nonexistent when it is plain as the nose on your face that it does indeed exist.

Without it, the prophecy makes no sense. With it, however, the prophecy points out the precise fulfillment of Christ's first coming.

Mark 1:14, 15-- Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

What "time" was fufilled?

Originally Posted By: miz3

2. Only a bad ruler would confirm the covenant for a week and then renig on that agreement half way through. Jesus Christ never did that.

This shows you don't understand what the text is saying.

It means that Jesus confirmed the covenant with the Jews as God's special people for one more week-- that is, for seven more years, or until 34 AD. God gave the Jews a probationary period of a total of 490 years from the time of the going forth of the command to rebuild Jerusalem, which command went forth in BC 457.

When Christ was anointed of the Holy Spirit in 27 AD, the Jews were given until 34 AD to fulfill God's plan for them. But, sadly, as a nation, they rejected God's plan both by rejecting the Messiah and then by rejecting the proclamation of the gospel of Christ. We find that recorded in Acts 7 and 8.

I do understand the text. I don't have to "add" things and "twist" concepts in order to come to an understanding.

I read the Word as God wrote it.

I do not understand why you have to add things and twist things in order to understand what God is saying?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

This cannot be for at least two reasons:

1. You are assuming the nonexistent year/day.

2. Only a bad ruler would confirm the covenant for a week and then renig on that agreement half way through. Jesus Christ never did that.

When Jesus Christ died the Jewish Nation was already Rejected by God.

a. the triumphal entry when Jesus wept for Jerusalem. You don't weep for something that has not happened yet especially when it could go either way but you weep for something that already is.

b. Jesus told them they were still guilty in their sins.

c. Jesus already told them that their house was left desolate.

All past tense. Jesus Christ never referred to the Jews as having any more probation. Thus, no 34AD as some cut off date.

Are we expected to believe your word or the Bible?

This is not a matter of choosing. Read the Bible 12 Tribes just as God wrote it. No additions, no twistings, no linguistic or grammatical gimmicks, no historical mumbo jumbo, etc.

Can you do this 12 Tribes?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

What does Daniel chapter nine mean?

Daniel tells us the purpose of his prayer and the desire of heart.

1. To confess his, Daniel’s, sins.

2. To confess the sins of his people, the Jews, the Children of Israel.

3. Request of God for the “Restoration” of Judah (holy hill).

To understand Daniel chapter nine it is vital that we keep these three objectives in mind. Why? Because God gives Daniel an answer to all Daniel’s questions.

God sends Gabriel while Daniel was still praying to give Daniel an answer. In fact Gabriel in verse twenty-two tells Daniel the very purpose for Gabriel’s mission: To give Daniel insight and understanding.

About what?

About Daniel’s three objectives, that is what.

In verse twenty-three Gabriel states that God intends to give Daniel an answer the moment Daniel began to pray. God already knew what was on Daniel’s heart even before Daniel expressed it in prayer.

Verse twenty-three gives Daniel the answer to Daniels first objective which was to confess his, Daniel’s, own sins. To which Gabriel responds by telling Daniel that he, Daniel, is “highly esteemed”. In other words, Daniel your sins are forgiven and you pure in the sight of God.

Then Gabriel tells Daniel the answers to the other two questions.

First of these regarded the “sin of my people Israel”?

To which Gabriel tells Daniel that Israel will have “Seventy ‘sevens’” to clean up their act, so to speak.

Just what are the “seventy ‘sevens’”?

Reading the Bible just as it is written means that “seventy ‘sevens’” is seventy weeks (a seven is one week in the reality of our time as God made it at creation). How much is seventy weeks. Approx. one point four years.

This seventy weeks is all God is giving the Children of Israel to “clean up their act” and remain as God’s People.

Questions still remain:

1. When will Israel get this chance probation to “clean up its act”?

2. When is the restoration of Israel to begin?

3. What will happen? Will Israel succeed in restoring “Righteousness”

Gabriel answers all these questions.

The probationary period starts from the “issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem”.

Notice also that an “anointed one” will also come after “seven ‘sevens’ or seven weeks have elapsed. In addition to this there will be sixty-two more weeks before the next event.

Jerusalem will indeed be rebuilt (a fact that was of great interest to Daniel because Daniel was asking this very thing) with streets and a trench. However the rebuilding will take place under great stress.

After the sixty-two week period has elapsed the “anointed one” who came after the first seven ‘sevens’ (seven weeks) will be “cut off and have nothing”. What does this mean?

It could mean a number of things.

1. The “anointed one” is killed.

2. The “anointed one” loses his power and is isolated.

3. Both two and three.

This ends any talk about the “anointed one”. Everything after this has nothing to do with the “anointed one”.

Next Gabriel tells Daniel that the “ruler” of the people will come and destroy the city and the sanctuary. Who is this “ruler”?

Is this ruler a pagan from outside of Judah? Is this ruler a Jew from inside Daniel’s people?

The Bible does not answer this question. Regardless, the Bible does say that during this time there will much war, desolation, and chaos. This is a true statement because as Gabriel in verse twenty-six these things “have been decreed” by God.

Who is the “he” that starts verse twenty-seven? It obviously is the “ruler of the people” who ends the “anointed one’s” power destroys the city and the sanctuary.

What does “destroy the city and the sanctuary” mean? It could mean many things.

1. Physical destruction. (this is the first human thing that comes to mind but it may not be the truth).

2. Spiritual and cessation destruction.

Given the context of Daniel nine it is a Spiritual and cessation type of destruction. This ruler will seem to “confirm the covenant” at first but in the middle of the “week” this evil ruler will put an end to “sacrifice and offering” in addition to polluting the sanctuary.

Gabriel further says that this “ruler” will continue to exist until the time God has decreed for his end.

Thus, Daniel nine is very clear and straight forward.

Do you ever quote the Bible? The Bible needs no interpreter but, you are putting your interpretation on the Bible.

You conveniently left out the full Biblical text that I quoted before those remarks. I quote Daniel chapter nine verses twenty to twenty-seven. My remarks were a verse by verse discussion of the that very Bible text which you omitted in order to make me "look" bad. This is not honest discussion to omit things in order to create the wrong impression. Whose example are you following?

Why did you leave out the Bible quote that was before my remarks? Why do you use these unChristian tactics?

[skyblue888]

Miz3, I have been reading your posts lately in regard to the day/year principle and I cannot for the life of me understand why you do not see that this principle, when applied to the 70 week prophecy, fits perfectly.

I have to agree with John on this. Your reasoning makes absolutely no sense at all.

sky

[miz3]

Miz3, I have been reading your posts lately in regard to the day/year principle and I cannot for the life of me understand why you do not see that this principle, when applied to the 70 week prophecy, fits perfectly.

I have to agree with John on this. Your reasoning makes absolutely no sense at all.

sky

That is just the problem, it does not fit perfectly.

[skyblue888]

It does miz3.

sky

[ClubV12]

Wow, your arrogance is off the chart miz3.

[Lysimachus]

You are free to believe what you want. However, what I wrote is the Truth.

And likewise Miz3. You also are free to believe what you want. But I am persuaded by the Word of God alone that you are in absolute error and are a deceived individual. I have tested sharing Daniel 9:24-27 with people who knew nothing about the 70 weeks prophecy, and just casually reading it, they, on their own, come to similar conclusions that Adventists adhere to. They naturally interpret the Messiah the Prince as a pair, ONE person. They NATURALLY interpret the "he" in 9:27 as the same Messiah! They naturally count 70 weeks as 490 years, etc.

Have you considered that it is you Miz3? That it is your brain? That it might have some problem with you? And the way you choose to operate and allow your mind to control the way you deep down inside WANT the 70 weeks to be interpreted? Have you considered that perhaps you are deceiving yourself and the Devil is the one who is making you think that you are just "taking the Word for what it says", but your'e really not? That you just THINK you are because deep down inside you don't want to have to believe these things, and that perhaps you might be forced to believe the day/year principle?

You may disagree miz3, but this is EXACTLY your problem. Your problem is, you don't want these interpretations to be right, because it would require too much pride and humility to accept them, and give up your cherished idol of private interpretation.

Such cherished views are not part of the recipe for salvation. If we are completely isolated in our views (as you are--alone for that matter), we should humbly submit to the brethren when they help us see that our view is not correct.

This would be the right thing for you to do, but you refuse to accept this counsel. You want your own way. You want to go to heaven alone. But you can't go alone! The Lord expects you to come into harmony with your brethren first!

[John317]

To cite that all translations are "paraphrases" is misleading. This leaves the wrong impression and opens the door to translations that would undo your own doctrines as an SDA and so you yourself do not accept every translation.

....John317 at minimum this is sloppy and is also not truthful to use such tactics in order to make your point. Once again you are using tactics that are for debating purposes only and not for really finding the Truth.

Are you aware that such tactics are NOT CHRISTIAN?

John317 I am disappointed that you would stoop to such a low standard.

I never said that "all translations are 'paraphrases.'" You are accusing me, whether you know it or not, of something I never did or even thought of doing.

But then it's also possible that I failed to make myself clear.

Of course all translation are NOT paraphrases. Please go back and reread what I wrote. Can you quote the statement I made which led you to believe I'm saying "all translations are paraphrases"? Some translations are literal and other are dynamic and still others are paraphrases. Still others are a combination of dynamic and paraphrase.

Here's what I actually said:

Quote:

The New Century Version is not a literal version, of course. It attempts to simplify, which is OK. All the translations and paraphrases have good aspects. No translation is perfect. Even the Septuagint that the apostles used was a paraphrase in many parts, and not even an accurate paraphrase. It is still the word of God.

The point here is that the NCV got Daniel 9: 24-27 right.

[Lysimachus]

I do understand the text. I don't have to "add" things and "twist" concepts in order to come to an understanding.

I read the Word as God wrote it.

I do not understand why you have to add things and twist things in order to understand what God is saying?

There is NO ADDING THINGS, or TWISTING THINGS miz3. It is YOU who is twisting the passage, playing semantic jugglery with the texts, playing word hopscotch, dancing between the raindrops, playing peekaboo and ring around the rosy! It is YOUU! WE can all see that this is what you are DOING as plain as DAY! We are taking the passage JUST for what it says, and YOU are the one DOING those things you are accusing us of doing! NOT US.

[miz3]

The New Century Version is not a literal version, of course. It attempts to simplify, which is OK. All the translations and paraphrases have good aspects. No translation is perfect. Even the Septuagint that the apostles used was a paraphrase in many parts, and not even an accurate paraphrase. It is still the word of God.

The point here is that the NCV got Daniel 9: 24-27 right.

Here is what you actually wrote.

What you are saying in general is that "paraphrases" are Ok and accurate. When you cite the Septuagint you "infer" that all Versions in some way "paraphrase". Paraphrases are always "subjective" and thus are prone to being wrong. This is why true Bible study does not use "paraphrase translations" because they are fraught with too many errors.

You are saying the above in order to give credibility to the NCV which in fact has no credibility because it "adds" to the Word of God things that are not there.

[Lysimachus]

John317 is correct miz3. The interpretations we have come to regarding Daniel 9:24-27 is unanimously accepted across the board the world-over. Your interpretation is spurious, isolated, and not even recognized or considered. Why? The text simply does not read what you are saying it says. It just doesn't. It's not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of EXACTLY WHAT THE TEXT READS, and it reads nothing what you are saying it reads.

You are determined to continue plowing like a stubborn bulldozer (annoying at that), regardless of what we tell you. You are becoming a nuisance and pestilence to this board.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

I do understand the text. I don't have to "add" things and "twist" concepts in order to come to an understanding.

I read the Word as God wrote it.

I do not understand why you have to add things and twist things in order to understand what God is saying?

There is NO ADDING THINGS, or TWISTING THINGS miz3. It is YOU who is twisting the passage, playing semantic jugglery with the texts, playing word hopscotch, dancing between the raindrops, playing peekaboo and ring around the rosy! It is YOUU! WE can all see that this is what you are DOING as plain as DAY! We are taking the passage JUST for what it says, and YOU are the one DOING those things you are accusing us of doing! NOT US.

Ok, if you are taking the passage of Daniel chapter nine for exactly what it says:

1. Show me the year/day in this passage.

2. Show me where it says Jesus Christ is the "anointed one".

[Lysimachus]

Ok, if you are taking the passage of Daniel chapter nine for exactly what it says:

1. Show me the year/day in this passage.

[John317]

Have you considered that it is you Lysimachus? That it is your brain? That it might have some problem with you? And the way you Lysimachus choose to operate and allow your mind to control the way you deep down inside WANT the 70 weeks to be interpreted?

Was the above written by someone who truly believes that human beings are not free moral agents?

If Lysimachus is not a free moral agent, he is not choosing how to "operate" and he certainly cannot control the way his mind thinks. He would only do those things if he is a free moral agent.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Ok, if you are taking the passage of Daniel chapter nine for exactly what it says:

1. Show me the year/day in this passage.

Try counting without it. It leads to nowhere. Scripture with Scripture (Isaiah 28:9-13). Ezekiel 4:6 and Numbers 14:34. BINGO! The Spirit now provides the answer, line upon line, here a little, there a little. Scripture is its own expositor!

Quote:

2. Show me where it says Jesus Christ is the "anointed one".

Where is Jesus Christ mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament? The word "Christ" is "christos", which means "anointed one". Jesus Christ meets the specifications. Its as simple as that.

Ok, we have now established that when you, Lysimachus, reads Daniel chapter nine you do not read it as it is. You have to bring in other stuff even unrelated stuff to bolster your view.

1. Isaiah 28, Ezekiel 4, and Numbers 14, are not directly nor do they in anyway infer anything about Daniel chapter nine. You are forcing them to apply.

Thus, you are not reading the passage as is written. Falsehood is a no, no.

2. Nothing in Daniel chapter nine says anything about Jesus Christ as you admit.

You have inferred on your own human fiat that the "anointed one" is Jesus Christ. There were other "anointed ones", such as Cyrus, Saul, David, and Aaron. So an "anointed one" does not have to be referring to Jesus Christ.

SO MUCH FOR YOUR FAILED BOAST THAT YOU READ THE PASSAGE AS IT IS WRITTEN.

[John317]

2. Show me where it says Jesus Christ is the "anointed one".

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

Where is Jesus Christ mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament? The word "Christ" is "christos", which means "anointed one". Jesus Christ meets the specifications. Its as simple as that.

Good point.

Also, the Hebrew word translated "anointed one" means "Messiah," and as you point out, this in turn is translated in Greek as "Christos," or "Christ."

It is perfectly correct to translate it as either "messiah" or as "anointed one." The translation of the KJV in Daniel 9: 25 is not a mistranslation. There are many good translations that read the same way, and they are in conformity with the Hebrew-English lexicons.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

2. Show me where it says Jesus Christ is the "anointed one".

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

Where is Jesus Christ mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament? The word "Christ" is "christos", which means "anointed one". Jesus Christ meets the specifications. Its as simple as that.

Good point.

Also, the Hebrew word translated "anointed one" means "Messiah," and as you point out, this in turn is translated in Greek as "Christos," or "Christ."

It is perfectly correct to translate it as either "messiah" or as "anointed one." The translation of the KJV in Daniel 9: 25 is not a mistranslation. There are many good translations that read the same way, and they are in conformity with the Hebrew-English lexicons.

OK, then Isaiah chapter forty-five says that Cyrus was God's "anointed one" does that mean we could say that Cyrus was God's Messiah?

"This is what the LORD says to his anointed,

to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of

to subdue nations before him

and to strip kings of their armor,

to open doors before him

so that gates will not be shut:"

Isaiah 45:1.

Just how many "messiahs" are we dealing with here?

You are having trouble finding the "unique" factor.

Daniel chapter nine is a general not a specific "anointed one" or general "messiah" like Cyrus, Aaron, Saul, David.

[John317]

...2. Nothing in Daniel chapter nine says anything about Jesus Christ as you admit.

You have inferred on your own human fiat that the "anointed one" is Jesus Christ. There were other "anointed ones", such as Cyrus, Saul, David, and Aaron. So an "anointed one" does not have to be referring to Jesus Christ.

Is Isaiah 53 about Jesus Christ?

Yes, it certainly is, yet it also does not say anything about Jesus Christ.

That is because the Word of God took the name "Jesus" only at the time He was conceived and not before.

So we shouldn't look for the name "Jesus Christ" in the Hebrew Bible. Yet of course that does not mean the Hebrew Bible lacks any references to Jesus Christ.

Therefore, you are using invalid reasoning when you claim that Daniel 9: 24-27 does not refer to Jesus Christ. If you use the same invalid reasoning, you have to conclude that no Bible text refers to Jesus Christ. Why? Because none use the name "Jesus Christ."

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

...2. Nothing in Daniel chapter nine says anything about Jesus Christ as you admit.

You have inferred on your own human fiat that the "anointed one" is Jesus Christ. There were other "anointed ones", such as Cyrus, Saul, David, and Aaron. So an "anointed one" does not have to be referring to Jesus Christ.

Is Isaiah 53 about Jesus Christ?

Yes, it certainly is, yet it also does not say anything about Jesus Christ.

That is because the Word of God took the name "Jesus" only at the time He was conceived and not before.

So we shouldn't look for the name "Jesus Christ" in the Hebrew Bible. Yet of course that does not mean the Hebrew Bible lacks any references to Jesus Christ.

Therefore, you are using invalid reasoning when you claim that Daniel 9: 24-27 does not refer to Jesus Christ. If you use the same invalid reasoning, you have to conclude that no Bible text refers to Jesus Christ. Why? Because none use the name "Jesus Christ."

Did the New Testament validate that Isaiah chapter 53 was about Jesus Christ?

YES!

Does the New Testament validate that Daniel chapter nine was about Jesus Christ?

NO!