• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Daniel 9:24-27

Carbon

Admin
Joined
May 19, 2023
Messages
7,189
Reaction score
7,078
Points
175
Location
New England
Faith
Reformed
Country
USA
Marital status
Married
Politics
Conservative
This chapter in Daniel has always fascinated me. I have studied it a few times, and I have to admit, at least to me, it is not easy to sort out. I believe I have a good understanding of it (keep in mind I am a covenant theology proponent.) But I am very interested in how others understand it. Those who are Post-Mill, Historical Pre-Mil & Dispensational. Partial preterist, and preterist. and Pann-Mills.


Daniel 9: 24“Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the wrongdoing, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place. 25So you are to know and understand that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with streets and moat, even in times of distress. 26Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27And he will confirm a covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come the one who makes desolate, until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, gushes forth on the one who makes desolate.”
 
This chapter in Daniel has always fascinated me. I have studied it a few times, and I have to admit, at least to me, it is not easy to sort out. I believe I have a good understanding of it (keep in mind I am a covenant theology proponent.) But I am very interested in how others understand it. Those who are Post-Mill, Historical Pre-Mil & Dispensational. Partial preterist, and preterist. and Pann-Mills.


Daniel 9: 24“Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the wrongdoing, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place. 25So you are to know and understand that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with streets and moat, even in times of distress. 26Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27And he will confirm a covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come the one who makes desolate, until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, gushes forth on the one who makes desolate.”
What translation is that? Here is the ESV.



“Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. And 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 and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed."

The "an anointed one" in the translation you use is translated Messiah (word definition when in lower case, and also has the meaning of chosen one) and Jesus in upper case.) He is not "an" anointed one but the anointed one. I think the translation use skews the interpretation in one direction. There are other views on that passage, so I question why only one is permitted by the translation itself.

 
What translation is that? Here is the ESV.



“Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. And 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 and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed."

The "an anointed one" in the translation you use is translated Messiah (word definition when in lower case, and also has the meaning of chosen one) and Jesus in upper case.) He is not "an" anointed one but the anointed one. I think the translation use skews the interpretation in one direction. There are other views on that passage, so I question why only one is permitted by the translation itself.
Hmmm, thought I chose NASB, but think I messed up. :unsure:
 
Back
Top