Welcome!
Submitted For Your Discernment
(Disclaimer: I am in no way agreeing nor disagreeing with the author of the post below. I am merely submitting this for discussion purposes.)
Perhaps we have misinterpreted the meaning of Daniel 9:25 due to punctuation that was not properly placed in this verse. If we have missed the original Hebrew intent of the sentence, this could be the reason why the rapture has not yet occured.
The main premise of the article below talks about a punctuation error from the original Hebrew translation of Daniel 9:25, resulting in a completely different meaning.
In Hebrew, there are two type of accents that act as punctuation marks. The strong accent serve as stops (periods), colons, and semicolons. One of these accents is called the athnah. It functions to mark the first half of a verse and serves as a strong break within a sentence.
In the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:25, there is an athnah under the Hebrew word for “seven”, which in the text closes the first period of sevens.
Thus, in Hebrew the accent makes a separation between the two periods of weeks. If the translator of the KJV had followed the Hebrew accentuation, the translation of Daniel 9:25 would read as follows:
“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. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.”
The problem with many translations of this verse is that they do not take into consideration the Hebrew accentuation of verse 25.
Standard KJV of Daniel 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.”
Note how different the meaning of the same verse is by ignoring the accentuation that was not, according to this author, translated properly.
The author's intent was only to demonstrate how a biased translation can completely change the meaning of the verse. He unfortunately does not give a commentary as to what this may mean and how it relates to the rapture.
Comments are welcome! 
-----------------
"Fair Use For Discussion and Educational Purposes"
Rereading Daniel 9:25-27: The Seventy Weeks of Daniel
This essay is the third in a series of studies dealing with translation issues related to the very controversial text of Daniel 9:25-27. I recommend that if you have not read the previous essays, read them before you continue reading this essay about the seventy weeks of Daniel.
The first essay, Fairbairn v. Fairbairn, deals with the issue of interpretation of biblical texts. The issue focuses on how people can interpret the same biblical text in different ways.
The second essay, Rereading Daniel 9:25-27: The Coming of the Messiah, deals with the issue of how to translate the word mashiah and nagid in Daniel 9:25. The conclusion of the study was that the text requires the translation “an anointed one,” and “a prince.”
This translation of the text was affirmed in a comment made by Lingamish in his blog Definiteness in Hebrew. In that post, Lingamish wrote:
“Wayne at Better Bibles referenced Dr. Mariottini's blog on Daniel 9:25. According to Dr. Mariottini's argument, the lack of an article in verse 25 is evidence that Daniel isn't referring to ‘the’ annointed [sic] one but to ‘an’ annointed one.”
“I just happened to be sitting at a workshop next to Dr. Stephen Levinsohn and asked him about definite articles in Hebrew. He said that generally in introducing a participant in Hebrew you would expect to not have an article on the first reference. Subsequent reference to the participant would have the article. So the example in 9:25 does not necessarily demonstrate that Daniel wasn't referring to a specific annointed one. However, in verse 26, Daniel again refers to the annointed one without the article, and in Dr. Levinsohn's view this was evidence to support the proposition that Daniel was referring to an undefined ‘annointed one.’”
I want to thank Dr. Stephen Levinsohn for his affirmation. In the present essay, I want to deal with another issue of translation: the seventy weeks of Daniel. The King James Version translates Daniel 9:25 as follows:
“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.”
According to this translation, “the Messiah” shall come after 69 weeks (7 weeks + 62 weeks). Then “the Messiah” shall be cut off at the end of the 62nd week (v. 26).
The same approach is taken by the Holman Christian Standard Version. The HCSV reads: “Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince will be seven weeks and 62 weeks.”
The problem with these two translations and others that follow the same reading is that they do not take into consideration the Hebrew accentuation of verse 25. The issue of Hebrew accents is difficult, but a few words can clarify the issue.
In Hebrew there are two types of accents and they act as punctuation marks. The strong accents serve as stops (periods), colons, and semicolons. One of these accents is called the athnah. The function of the athnah is to mark the first half of a verse and serves as a strong break within a sentence.
The Hebrew text contains an athnah under the Hebrew word for “seven”, which in the text closes the first period of sevens. Thus, in Hebrew the accent makes a separation between the two periods of weeks. If the translator of the KJV had followed the Hebrew accentuation, the translation of Daniel 9:25 would read as follows:
“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. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.”
This is the translation adopted by the English Standard Version (ESV). The Revised Standard Version and a few other translations have adopted similar reading. Notice that the coming of the anointed one comes at the end of seven weeks, not at the end of sixty-nine weeks.
The difference between the ESV and the KJV is that the ESV follows the Masoretic Text (MT) while the KJV follows the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Theodotion text.
The issue among interpreters is which text reflects the original reading of Daniel 9:25. Those who advocate Theodotion do so because his translation was finished in the second century A. D., while the Masoretic text found its final form in the ninth or tenth century A. D. Many people believe the Masoretes changed the text to avoid the Messianic interpretation of Daniel 9:25, whereas TheodotionÂ’s translation supports the Messianic view.
Those who take the traditional translation of Daniel 9:25, represented by the King James Version and other translations, are led to believe that “the Messiah,” “the Prince,” was killed at the end of the 69th week. Since the “Messiah,” and the “Prince,” are interpreted to be Jesus, then the dates are calculated so that the conclusion of the 69th week ends in A. D. 32, the year that Christ died.
But this calculation leaves the last week, the 70th week of Daniel unfulfilled. This is where the dispensationalism of Scofield enters in. Since the 70th week does not fit historically, dispensationalists talk about “The Great Parenthesis.” As one proponent of the theory wrote:
“Between the sixty-nine and the seventieth weeks we have a Great Parenthesis which has now lasted over nineteen hundred years. The seventieth week has been postponed by God Himself, who changes the times and the seasons because of the transgression of the people.”
According to this view, the reason the last week was postponed was because when Christ died on the cross, “the prophetic clock stopped” until the age of the church comes to an end.
This infusion of ideas into Daniel 9:25-27, a process that is called eisegesis, is what leads people into dispensationalism. Eisegesis is the process of interpreting the Bible in which the interpreter tries to make the Bible say something that is in accordance with some pre-existing idea about a particular issue or doctrine.
Those who use eisegesis to interpret the Bible generally are not willing to allow the Bible to be understood as it was intended by the original writer. Rather, those who infuse ideas into the Bible are trying to prove something they already believe in.
People who use eisegesis can find aliens and astronauts in the Old Testament. They can also find America and Russia, Gorbachov and Saddam Hussein, the rapture and the tribulation, and a host of others things that are not in the Bible.
So, who was the anointed one of Daniel 9:25? In order to answer this question, there are several things that must control the interpretation of the text. Again, using the text of the ESV, the identification of the anointed one must fall within these guidelines:
First, an anointed one, who is also a prince of the community, must come at the end of the first seven weeks: “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” (v. 25a).
Second, after the coming of the anointed one, Jerusalem would be built again: “Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time” (v. 25b).
Third, at the end of the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be killed: “And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing” (v. 26a).
Fourth, after the death of the anointed one, the people of a prince shall destroy the sanctuary: “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. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator” (vv. 26b-27).
When the biblical text is taken at face value, the text speaks of two anointed ones and two princes. Also, when the biblical text is taken at face value, the dispensationalism of Scofield, the Great Parenthesis, the seven year tribulation and all the other issues related to this doctrine, are found to have no biblical basis.
As for the identity of the one who was a prince and an anointed one, I leave that for those who write commentaries. My intent was only to demonstrate how a biased translation of a text can lead people astray. Translators have a responsibility of being neutral in their translation of the biblical text.
NOTE: My blog has moved to a new address. If you enjoyed reading this post, you can subscribe to my blog by visiting my web page or subscribing to my blog here:
Dr. Claude Mariottini
http://doctor.claudemariottini.com/2006/05/rereading-daniel-925-27-seventy-weeks.html
Hi Mary Beth,
It will be interesting to hear additional comments on the information you posted.
Here is mine.
I know I'm not qualified to address Hebrew punctuation in Daniel 9:25.
I'll leave this for others here who are more knowledgeable in this area and the sequence of prophetical events.
For me, the number one reason that we are the generation that will see the Blessed Hope is the fact that the nation of Israel is here again.
In our generation this is proof positive that the stage is set for the Good Lord's closing program.
Also, Knowledge...has been increased greatly and people go to and fro in ways that was unheard of years ago.
A while back Donna and others gave several lists of why these are the Last of the Last Days.
We know from Scripture that Paul lists 21 items of perilous times...I think this is in 2Tim. 3:1-4.
21 is the number for Exceeding Sinfulness of Sin in the Scriptures from Don Kistler's book The Arithmetic of God.
On the link you provided I found this last paragraph from an article/blog that caught my Scofield Bible loving eyes.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Monday May 1, 2006
"This is the reason I believe the notes of the Scofield Bible are not helpful. Many good people, influenced by the notes of the Scofield Bible, have developed a system of theology that cannot stand the scrutiny of an impartial reading of the biblical text. I am convinced that, if the Scofield notes had not been included into a Bible, the teachings of Scofield would have perished a long time ago.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Just the thought that the rapture of the church is not in our Immediate (then how long?) future is very discouraging to say the least.
ybi Christ's Wonderful Love and Faithfulness,
Joe
Email: jpcarr@att.net
Thank you Joseph, Amy, and Rene for your great posts!
This author was probably influenced by his unbelieving Jewish friend who had a different take on who the annointed prince was.
As one friend pointed out to me, the Jews were so intent on denying that Jesus was the Messiah that they even took off an uncertain number of years--estimates range from 145 years to 222--from their own calendar just so they could make it look like this passage was not talking about Jesus.
The discussion about the Hebrew definite article that did not appear in the text was part of the deception that they teach.
Here's a great explanation from Christ Connection about this passage:
"Fair Use For Discussion and Educational Purposes"
The prophecy of the 70 weeks, given in Daniel 9:24-27 is the single most important, most accurate, TIMELINE in history.
It is so precise that people really need to be pathologically biased in order to misunderstand it.
It's so awesomely fulfilled in Jesus Christ that unbelieving critics have made the false claim that it wasn't written by Daniel, but by an anonymous author, at a much later date, AFTER Jesus appeared, died and rose from the dead.
Only problem with their false theory is that, in the second century B.C., when the Hebrew Bible was translated into koine Greek, the same Book of Daniel we have in our Bibles today, in its entirety, was included in the Septuagint. THAT is undisputed.
Jews offer a different excuse. They claim [falsely, of course] that the "anointed prince" [mashiach nagid] is Cyrus, king of Persia.
While it's true that God refers to Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1 as His "anointed", there are a couple of problems with that view:
The prophecy states that "Messiah Prince" [mashiach nagid] was cut off [killed] after 62 sabbatical "weeks", which is 434 years. Unless they want to argue that Cyrus lived 500 years, it doesn't hold water.
In their blindness, they say this refers to two anointed princes, Cyrus, who issued the decree to rebuild THE TEMPLE 7 weeks [49 years] after the Babylonian captivity [that claim is HIGHLY debatable], and that the second prince who died after 62 weeks [434 years] is Alexander Jannaeus, a cruel king of Judea during the Hasmonean dynasty.
To think that God would send Gabriel to deliver a special message about that is absurd.
It also contradicts the text, which says the command is to rebuild THE CITY, NOT the temple.
It also says that the 49 years come AFTER that decree, NOT BEFORE.
These facts alone, COMPLETELY DEBUNK and RIP their theory to shreds.
There are two princes mentioned in this passage "Messiah Prince" [Jesus] and "the prince that shall come" [Titus] who would destroy the city and temple. Period.
If the Jews' perspective were true, you need THREE PRINCES: Cyrus, Alexander Jannaeus, and Titus.
Moreover, in the previous verse [24] Gabriel specifies that the 70 weeks are to "put an end to sin", and bring in EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS. Are they suggesting that Cyrus's decree and Alexander Jannaeus's death accomplished that? Get real!
Their last desperate pretext is that the Hebrew definite article ha, referring to the Messiah does not appear in the text.
That in no way indicates that Jesus wasn't and isn't the fulfillment of this prophecy.
The definite article doesn't appear in verse 26 either, where it refers to Titus as another prince that would come. Does that mean Titus wasn't a specific prince than came and destroyed the city and the temple, in 70 A.D., precisely as predicted?
Take off the blinders, Jewish friends!
Even Maimonides admitted that this prophecy was about the Messiah. In context, IT COULDN'T BE ANYONE ELSE.
NO ONE ELSE can bring EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS.
NO ONE ELSE can put an end to sin.
NO ONE ELSE can seal the vision and prophecy.
And, NO ONE ELSE can put an end to the desolations [plural] of Jerusalem [Daniel 9:2].
Gabriel told Daniel there would be 70 sabbatical weeks [shmitas] in which:
Jerusalem would be rebuilt. It was.
Messiah would appear. He did.
Messiah would be killed. He was.
Messiah would confirm the covenant. He did.
Then another prince would come who'd destroy [yet again] the city and the temple. It happened.
The temple site would remain desolate UNTIL "the time of the end". It has!
This was prophecy when Gabriel told Daniel.
These things are now HISTORY.
http://www.christconnection.net/id3.html
