BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Contrast the direct application of the points above to the points explicitly made in the prophecy of Daniel 9 with the following alternative.
All Agree that the 490 year timeline is THE great Messianic timeline prophecy in the OT.
All Agree Daniel nine contains two timelines – Jeremiah’s 70 years in Dan 9:2 and Daniel’s 490 years (70 weeks) starting in vs 24.
All Agree The 70 year timeline remains in tact and holds up This means that GIVEN the start year AND the timeline – the end year is also known
1. Yet the 490 year prophecy is to be broken up by inserting gaps of unknown lengths of time so that the end year can not be known EVEN though the start year is known. This is an abuse to a timeline not done with any other timeline in scripture – and so it is without exegetical support. We should ignore the fact that there are no instances in all of scripture of a time span prophecy - having gaps inserted, just go ahead and insert the gap as the theory requires without looking for exegetical precedence.
2. Although this is the great Messianic timeline prophecy of scripture – ALL messianic events listed in chapter 9 are to be excluded from the timeline to satisfy the need to make this prophecy all about the end time antichrist. NO Messianic event listed in the chapter is allowed IN the 490 year timeline!
3. Although the text speaks of the coming of the Messiah and then of his death in the week that follows the 69th week (70th week) we are to ignore that and put the 70th week of 7 years of time at the end of the age.
4. Although the text of Daniel 9 speaks of rebuilding the city of Jerusalem and then later about its destruction – we are to pretend that the city destroyed is NOT the city rebuilt. I.E the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is to be ignored entirely – not IN the 490 years and not even an event mentioned OUTSIDE the 490 years!
5. Although the text says an existing covenant is Strengthened for the entire 7 years of the last prophetic week - we ignore that and pretend as though the text said a NEW covenant IS MADE at the start of the 7 years and then BROKEN in the middle of the 7 years – not lasting 7 years. We edit and reword such that the start of this 7 years now says 'and he will make a covenant at the start of the 7 years but will then break his word after 3.5 years".
6. Find fulfillment of this alternate view in the NT - NOT by actually using the references to "covenant" and placing and end to "Sacrifices" or to "the people of the Prince" - just make things up in 2Thess2 and Rev 13 out of whole cloth to be reworked back into Daniel 9.
7. In vs 26 we have two actors – A – THE MESSIAH and B-The PEOPLE of the prince who is to come. The “HE” of vs 27 applies to the “prince” in the PEOPLE of the prince – ignoring the fact that the PRINCE who is to come in vs 26 does nothing in vs 26. Skipping the primary subject of vs 26 (The MESSIAH) we are to make the “HE” of vs 27 refer only to the antichrist.
===============================================================
But here is another question for our dispensationalist brethren
- why object to Dan 9 holding it's integrity for BOTH time spans?
What do you lose by simply staying consistent with the text as I have shown above?
You already believe that Messiah the PRINCE (as Daniel 9 states ) came at the end of the 69th week (483 years) AND that this was the first advent of Christ - the ministry of the Messiah as promised in scripture.
You already believe that He died in that 7 year span following the start of Christ's ministry and that Daniel identifies that with events AFTER the 69th week.
You already believe that all the sacrifices ended at the cross - exactly 3 and 1/2 years after the start of Christ' ministry AND that He is the promised PRINCE of Isaiah 9:6 AND of Daniel's own prediction regarding "Messiah the Prince".
You already admit that AFTER the 69 weeks IN that next 7 year time period - the Messiah was "cut off" - crucified.
You already believe that God quit using the Hebrew nation church as His form of "Royal Priesthood" in that 7 year period?
So what do you lose?
The tribulation?
Christ predicts the tribulation period in Matt 24 without corrupting the time span of Daniel 9.
The rapture?
We already have the rapture predicted in 1Thess 4 without corrupting either time spane of Daniel 9.
So what is there to lose by staying with sound exegetical consistent use of BOTH time spans in Daniel 9?
Why the reluctance here?
The beauty of sticking with the consistent exegetical view that retains the integrity of BOTH time spans in Daniel 9 - is that not ONLY is it much easier to show from scripture - but ALSO we have no "open door" for "gap theories". There is no basis for injecting a gap into the timeline of Gen 1 based on the complete abandon with which some choose to inject gaps into one of the time spans of Daniel 9.
All Agree that the 490 year timeline is THE great Messianic timeline prophecy in the OT.
All Agree Daniel nine contains two timelines – Jeremiah’s 70 years in Dan 9:2 and Daniel’s 490 years (70 weeks) starting in vs 24.
All Agree The 70 year timeline remains in tact and holds up This means that GIVEN the start year AND the timeline – the end year is also known
1. Yet the 490 year prophecy is to be broken up by inserting gaps of unknown lengths of time so that the end year can not be known EVEN though the start year is known. This is an abuse to a timeline not done with any other timeline in scripture – and so it is without exegetical support. We should ignore the fact that there are no instances in all of scripture of a time span prophecy - having gaps inserted, just go ahead and insert the gap as the theory requires without looking for exegetical precedence.
2. Although this is the great Messianic timeline prophecy of scripture – ALL messianic events listed in chapter 9 are to be excluded from the timeline to satisfy the need to make this prophecy all about the end time antichrist. NO Messianic event listed in the chapter is allowed IN the 490 year timeline!
3. Although the text speaks of the coming of the Messiah and then of his death in the week that follows the 69th week (70th week) we are to ignore that and put the 70th week of 7 years of time at the end of the age.
4. Although the text of Daniel 9 speaks of rebuilding the city of Jerusalem and then later about its destruction – we are to pretend that the city destroyed is NOT the city rebuilt. I.E the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is to be ignored entirely – not IN the 490 years and not even an event mentioned OUTSIDE the 490 years!
5. Although the text says an existing covenant is Strengthened for the entire 7 years of the last prophetic week - we ignore that and pretend as though the text said a NEW covenant IS MADE at the start of the 7 years and then BROKEN in the middle of the 7 years – not lasting 7 years. We edit and reword such that the start of this 7 years now says 'and he will make a covenant at the start of the 7 years but will then break his word after 3.5 years".
6. Find fulfillment of this alternate view in the NT - NOT by actually using the references to "covenant" and placing and end to "Sacrifices" or to "the people of the Prince" - just make things up in 2Thess2 and Rev 13 out of whole cloth to be reworked back into Daniel 9.
7. In vs 26 we have two actors – A – THE MESSIAH and B-The PEOPLE of the prince who is to come. The “HE” of vs 27 applies to the “prince” in the PEOPLE of the prince – ignoring the fact that the PRINCE who is to come in vs 26 does nothing in vs 26. Skipping the primary subject of vs 26 (The MESSIAH) we are to make the “HE” of vs 27 refer only to the antichrist.
===============================================================
But here is another question for our dispensationalist brethren
- why object to Dan 9 holding it's integrity for BOTH time spans?
What do you lose by simply staying consistent with the text as I have shown above?
You already believe that Messiah the PRINCE (as Daniel 9 states ) came at the end of the 69th week (483 years) AND that this was the first advent of Christ - the ministry of the Messiah as promised in scripture.
You already believe that He died in that 7 year span following the start of Christ's ministry and that Daniel identifies that with events AFTER the 69th week.
You already believe that all the sacrifices ended at the cross - exactly 3 and 1/2 years after the start of Christ' ministry AND that He is the promised PRINCE of Isaiah 9:6 AND of Daniel's own prediction regarding "Messiah the Prince".
You already admit that AFTER the 69 weeks IN that next 7 year time period - the Messiah was "cut off" - crucified.
You already believe that God quit using the Hebrew nation church as His form of "Royal Priesthood" in that 7 year period?
So what do you lose?
The tribulation?
Christ predicts the tribulation period in Matt 24 without corrupting the time span of Daniel 9.
The rapture?
We already have the rapture predicted in 1Thess 4 without corrupting either time spane of Daniel 9.
So what is there to lose by staying with sound exegetical consistent use of BOTH time spans in Daniel 9?
Why the reluctance here?
The beauty of sticking with the consistent exegetical view that retains the integrity of BOTH time spans in Daniel 9 - is that not ONLY is it much easier to show from scripture - but ALSO we have no "open door" for "gap theories". There is no basis for injecting a gap into the timeline of Gen 1 based on the complete abandon with which some choose to inject gaps into one of the time spans of Daniel 9.