Dan 9:27

Not open for further replies.


Puritan Board Doctor
Daniel 9
27Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate."

How do you interpret this passage?


Puritan Board Doctor
Intresting...wondering if everyone here agree's with that or not? I would like other opinions if there are any.

Just getting a feel for opinions.



Puritan Board Sophomore
Though I wouldn't bet my soul on it, I lean towards Paul's answer too.

Having been weaned from the Hal Lindsay type of dispensational "gap theory" nonsense, I found J. Stuart Russell's book The Parousia to have some very serious Biblical arguments for the preterist position that I have yet to see refuted or addressed with adequacy. I'm not willing to go as far in the preterist camp as Russell (and others) but there is MUCH in Scripture and contemporary history (Josephus) that is VERY compelling.

Matt. 23:38

Behold, your house is left unto you DESOLATE.

I might be wrong but I have felt for some time that this verse ties in somehow with the Daniel verses quoted above.


Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:1876c68de3][i:1876c68de3]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:1876c68de3]
[quote:1876c68de3][i:1876c68de3]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:1876c68de3]
Intresting...wondering if everyone here agree's with that or not? I would like other opinions if there are any.

Just getting a feel for opinions.

Thanks! [/quote:1876c68de3]

probably not. I don't think that the majority here are preteristic. I don't see a way around it, though.


oh, and I said the roman army "will stand." I didn't mean to imply a furture tense. I am saying that Dan is talking about 70 a.d. and the destruction of the temple.

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:1876c68de3]

I'm don't see a way around it either Paul.

One thing though...when did you get so chummy with the prophet to feel comfortable calling him Dan? :lol:

We could call James the Brother of Jesus lil' J, and Peter Pentecost Pete.


Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:0b153b7307][i:0b153b7307]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:0b153b7307]


And John is Big John.

Hey, we'ree all in the same family so I guess I'm on more than "chum" terms. Heck, when I see 'em in heaven I might even give Peter a noogie:D. (no offense if anyone took any).

-Paul [/quote:0b153b7307]

That's ok. I think I'm going to give Adam a wedgy ("This one's for the fruit!!!")


Puritan Board Professor
[b:0b2be7d46f]Paul wrote:[/b:0b2be7d46f]
probably not. I don't think that the majority here are preteristic.

Its feels good to agree with Paul. On other more controversial and critical issues (the NBA playoffs) I think he's a little off, but on this issue he seems to be right on.

I don't know which escatological camp I fall into (still searching), but I agree with what Paul said in his first post.

Coming from a dispensational background, I can't tell you how many times I've heard it asked when Matthew 24,etc was taught, "Who is the YOU referring to?", and the answer was always the "Jews. So in this passage we're on Jewish ground".

I've heard others, who are more closely aligned with Harold Campings latest teachings, say that "you" is referring to the church, since Peter and the others were Christians.

When I read the passage, I see three possibilities. Jesus was talking to:

1. Peter, James, John, and so forth, who were men...
2. who were Jews...
3. and who were also Christians

I don't have all the difficulties ironed out, but the first choice makes the most sense to me. Jesus was talking to the disciples as men, not as representatives of a particular group, whether that be the Jews or the Christians. When Jesus said "you shall see", I think he was saying that the people he was speaking to would see these things.

As a side note, I've always thought it'd be a little more consistent if dispensationalists would ask the same questions of Revelation 4:1 as they do of Matthew 24. If we cross-reference the Matthew 24 passage with the corresponding passage in Mark, we find that John was one of those Jews represented by the "you" in Matthew 24.

Mar 13:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,

When we go to Revelation 4:1 and ask the question "Who does John represent?", to be consistent we'd have to say that since John is Jewish, he's representing the Jews. So, its not the church that gets raptured in Rev 4:1, its the Jewish nation.

Anyway, my thoughts about Rev 4:1 are the same as the Matthew 24 passage. When it says that John was told to come up hither, it means that John the man came up hither and was given a new revelation.

Just some thoughts,

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by blhowes]


Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:ad8b187288][i:ad8b187288]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:ad8b187288]
I don't think we will be wearing clothes in heaven though? Maybe you can walk up to him, reach out and pull some arm hairs off and ask, "odd or even?" [/quote:ad8b187288]


Also, a good idea!


Puritan Board Sophomore
<<<How do you interpret this passage?>>>
There is a similar topic ,on Daniel 9:27,on this discussion board.


Puritan Board Freshman
You guys are all going to burn in hell! (hahaha) Noogies and wedgies?!?!

Actually, Ian, when I read your post all I kept thinking about was "The Funky Bunch" (since they didn't have showers back then...)

If I remember my Catholic schooling, John would have to be Little John, since he was so young. Unless he had a metabolic imbalance...

Whoa! I just came up with something...as any good Catholic knows Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) was BALD...Uh-oh. Mayday, Bob, mayday. We may have a basketball situation on our hands...

I'm late for Church!!! Gotta go!!!


I love starting out the day with a big stupid grin on my face!


[Edited on 6-7-2004 by Mary]
Not open for further replies.