Mystery Babylon

[eternally-gratefull]

Gods promise to israel is Jesus salvation. He is their redeemer. And that includes their land. Didnt you know that? CHrist is the seed of abraham!

Seems you arent really putting two and two together.

this is going no where, you need to open your mind man

Gen 15:
17 And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces. 18 On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying:

“To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates— 19 the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

Can you tell me what in your mind tells you this has to do with the salvation of anyone? I mean think about it, If this is a salvation promise ALL JEWS WILL BE SAVED. And we both know that is not true!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You must be writing about yourself, for you know nothing about Daniel's 70 week prophecy.

Your just as lost here as you are with the gospel.

So do us both a favor and walk away.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

Actually he is

“
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then 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.

As you can see, there are two princes

1. Messiah the prince, who is killed at the end of the 69th week.
2. The prince who is to come, whose people destroy the sanctuary and city

Reading the text you can see clearly...

1. He will come out of rome (the people who destroyed the temple in 70 AD
2. It will occure AFTER the end of war desolations which are determined (ie, an unknown period of time, I would suggest ONLY God knows this time,
3. He not only confirms a 7 year covenant, he breaked it after three years with the abomination of desolation.

The confirmation of the covenant was through the giving of the Holy Spirit, no? In the time between Jesus death and resurrection, and the destruction of Jerusalem. So this would apply to Messiah the Prince (Jesus).

 

[SpoonJuly]

Actually he is

“
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then 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.

As you can see, there are two princes

1. Messiah the prince, who is killed at the end of the 69th week.
2. The prince who is to come, whose people destroy the sanctuary and city

Reading the text you can see clearly...

1. He will come out of rome (the people who destroyed the temple in 70 AD
2. It will occure AFTER the end of war desolations which are determined (ie, an unknown period of time, I would suggest ONLY God knows this time,
3. He not only confirms a 7 year covenant, he breaked it after three years with the abomination of desolation.

Vespasian was not/is not the antichrist.

You are using your Bible translation that is very different from the KJ that I use.

The doctrine of a seven year peace treaty between the antichrist and Israel is based on a misunderstanding of Daniel 9:27.
Here is a challenge---
Without using Daniel 9:27, prove with Scripture that the antichrist will make a 7 years treaty with Israel and will break that treaty after three and a half years.
If you can do that, I will consider your belief.
It is very unwise to base any doctrine on only one verse of Scripture.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I think the text actually states "with THE many"… which often in Scripture elsewhere the phrase "the many" is referring to Israel.


In my own studies, I came to the following conclusion long before I read any commentaries on it, but I happen to like how William Kelly says it :

[quoting Wm Kelly on Dan9:25]

"Then, in verse 25, the first particular comes in, after defining the starting-point. "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore [H7725] and to build [H1129] Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks." Now, in the Book of Ezra, we have a commandment from the king Artaxerxes, called in profane history Artaxerxes Longimanus, one of the monarchs of the Persian Empire. The first commandment was given to Ezra, the scribe, "in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king." In the twentieth year of the same monarch's reign, another commandment was given to Nehemiah. Now it is important for us to decide which of these two is referred to by Daniel. The earlier of them is recorded in Ezra 7, the second in Nehemiah 2. A careful examination of the two will show which is meant. Many excellent persons have interpreted it in a way which differs from that which I believe to be correct. But Scripture alone can decide the questions that arise out of Scripture. Foreign elements often lead to perplexity. Remark, that it is not merely a general order to the Jews, like that of Cyrus permitting their return, but a special one to restore their polity. Now, what is the difference between the two in the reign of Artaxerxes? The one to Ezra was mainly with a view to the rebuilding of the temple; the other to Nehemiah looks toward the city. Which is it here? "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem." Evidently the city is intended in Daniel; and if so, then we must see which of the two commandments concerns the city. There can be little doubt it was the second, not the first. It was the commission given to Nehemiah in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, not that to Ezra thirteen years before. A comparison with Nehemiah will confirm this."

--William Kelly, Commentary on Daniel 9 [source: Bible Hub; bold and underline mine, bracketed inserts mine]

[end quoting]



This was fulfilled on [what we call] Palm Sunday, when Jesus said what He did in Luke 19:41-44 [re: 'the city'] and did what He did [fulfilling Zech9:9, also regarding 'the city' ('THY King cometh UNTO THEE'--speaking to 'Jerusalem')].

The Subject of the prophecy in Dan9:24 is indeed stated to be "[70 Wks are determined upon]...and upon thy [Daniel's] holy city"

 

[SpoonJuly]

I think the text actually states "with THE many"… which often in Scripture elsewhere the phrase "the many" is referring to Israel.


In my own studies, I came to the following conclusion long before I read any commentaries on it, but I happen to like how William Kelly says it :

[quoting Wm Kelly on Dan9:25]

"Then, in verse 25, the first particular comes in, after defining the starting-point. "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore [H7725] and to build [H1129] Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks." Now, in the Book of Ezra, we have a commandment from the king Artaxerxes, called in profane history Artaxerxes Longimanus, one of the monarchs of the Persian Empire. The first commandment was given to Ezra, the scribe, "in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king." In the twentieth year of the same monarch's reign, another commandment was given to Nehemiah. Now it is important for us to decide which of these two is referred to by Daniel. The earlier of them is recorded in Ezra 7, the second in Nehemiah 2. A careful examination of the two will show which is meant. Many excellent persons have interpreted it in a way which differs from that which I believe to be correct. But Scripture alone can decide the questions that arise out of Scripture. Foreign elements often lead to perplexity. Remark, that it is not merely a general order to the Jews, like that of Cyrus permitting their return, but a special one to restore their polity. Now, what is the difference between the two in the reign of Artaxerxes? The one to Ezra was mainly with a view to the rebuilding of the temple; the other to Nehemiah looks toward the city. Which is it here? "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem." Evidently the city is intended in Daniel; and if so, then we must see which of the two commandments concerns the city. There can be little doubt it was the second, not the first. It was the commission given to Nehemiah in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, not that to Ezra thirteen years before. A comparison with Nehemiah will confirm this."

--William Kelly, Commentary on Daniel 9 [source: Bible Hub; bold and underline mine, bracketed inserts mine]

[end quoting]



This was fulfilled on [what we call] Palm Sunday, when Jesus said what He did in Luke 19:41-44 [re: 'the city'] and did what He did [fulfilling Zech9:9, also regarding 'the city' ('THY King cometh UNTO THEE'--speaking to 'Jerusalem')].

The Subject of the prophecy in Dan9:24 is indeed stated to be "[70 Wks are determined upon]...and upon thy [Daniel's] holy city"

The key to understanding is HE.
Who does HE refer to?
Where is the antichrist mentioned in the discourse of Daniel 9?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Vespasian was not/is not the antichrist.

You are using your Bible translation that is very different from the KJ that I use.

The doctrine of a seven year peace treaty between the antichrist and Israel is based on a misunderstanding of Daniel 9:27.
Here is a challenge---
Without using Daniel 9:27, prove with Scripture that the antichrist will make a 7 years treaty with Israel and will break that treaty after three and a half years.
If you can do that, I will consider your belief.
It is very unwise to base any doctrine on only one verse of Scripture.

How about this, Use dan 9 to explain what it is your trying to say.

Because I just posted and showed you WHY I believe that way with the passage itself. And remember, Even Jesus said it was not him who would commit the abomination of desolation 3. 5 years into the treaty..

And who is vespian?

How many times do people have to be told. I do not get my doctrine from man.

 

[SpoonJuly]

How about this, Use dan 9 to explain what it is your trying to say.

Because I just posted and showed you WHY I believe that way with the passage itself. And remember, Even Jesus said it was not him who would commit the abomination of desolation 3. 5 years into the treaty..

And who is vespian?

How many times do people have to be told. I do not get my doctrine from man.

I never said you got your doctrine from man.
It is that your understand, based on the Bible translation is different than my understand based on the KJ I use.
The two translations are very different in what they state.

Daniel 9:27 in the KJ does not use the term "abomination of desolation".
It states "and for the overspreading of abominations (plural, abominations), He shall make it desolate".
Abominations are defined as things detestable, unclean, evil.
Jesus presented Himself to Israel as their Messiah ( to CONFIRMED the covenant). Many believed. But under the leadership of the Pharisees, Israel not only rejected Him, they brought false witness against Him, blasphemed Him, and crucified Him. And after His resurrection, continued to lie and blaspheme Him, and continued to lead the people down a road to destruction.
This is the "overspreading of abominations".
Because of this "overspreading of abominations", He. the Messiah, did indeed make Israel desolate.
He, the Messiah, in 70AD used Titus, the son of the emperor Vespasian (the prince), lead the army of Vespasian (the people of the prince),
to destroy Jerusalem, the Temple, and Israel as a nation. Total and complete desolation of the city, temple, nation, and the land itself.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The key to understanding is HE.
Who does HE refer to?
Where is the antichrist mentioned in the discourse of Daniel 9?

In an earlier post I mentioned two keys to understanding the passage correctly:

--that the passage is telling of SEQUENTIAL things

--that the phrase "[the prince] THAT SHALL COME" [v.26] is unnecessary [redundant/superfluous/needlessly-wordy] in the text, IF referring to the same "prince" as was in v.25 [who is Jesus; and "when" THAT pertained]; for it to have said something like "he" or (simply) "the prince" (again) would have sufficed, if it had been referring to the same one, but as it stands, the text [instead] says, "unto the messiah the prince" [and describing His "shall be cut off" before continuing on to speak of]... "the prince THAT SHALL COME"


So, in view of this, I see:

the "he / he / he" of Daniel 9:27[26] IS the "who / who / who" of 2Th2 ['whose/who/whom']… which 2Th2 is covering the entire "7-yr period [70th-Wk]" JUST AS Dan9:27 is (its "BEGINNING" [2Th2:9a], its "MIDDLE [2Th2:4], its "END" [2Th2:8b]--exactly the same in each of these two passages/verse Dan9:27 ('for ONE WEEK [7 yrs]")]; this ["BEGINNING"] correlates also with the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" Jesus spoke about (in His phrasing, "the beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]"), in the FIRST one named in Matt24:4/Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE'" / which "BoBPs [plural]" EQUAL the SEALS of Rev6 [so SEAL #1 being the INITIAL one [see also the singular INITIAL "birth PANG" in 1Th5:2-3], with many more to follow on from that one])

 

[SpoonJuly]

In an earlier post I mentioned two keys to understanding the passage correctly:

--that the passage is telling of SEQUENTIAL things

--that the phrase "[the prince] THAT SHALL COME" [v.26] is unnecessary [redundant/superfluous/needlessly-wordy] in the text, IF referring to the same "prince" as was in v.25 [who is Jesus; and "when" THAT pertained]; for it to have said something like "he" or (simply) "the prince" (again) would have sufficed, if it had been referring to the same one, but as it stands, the text [instead] says, "unto the messiah the prince" [and describing His "shall be cut off" before continuing on to speak of]... "the prince THAT SHALL COME"


So, in view of this, I see:

the "he / he / he" of Daniel 9:27[26] IS the "who / who / who" of 2Th2 ['whose/who/whom']… which 2Th2 is covering the entire "7-yr period [70th-Wk]" JUST AS Dan9:27 is (its "BEGINNING" [2Th2:9a], its "MIDDLE [2Th2:4], its "END" [2Th2:8b]--exactly the same in each of these two passages/verse Dan9:27 ('for ONE WEEK [7 yrs]")]; this ["BEGINNING"] correlates also with the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" Jesus spoke about (in His phrasing, "the beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]") in Matt24:4/Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE'" / which "BoBPs" EQUAL the SEALS of Rev6 [so SEAL #1])

I must respectfully disagree.
What I see you doing is FORCING the Scripture to support what you believe.

 

[SpoonJuly]

Brothers, there is often disagreement because we study different translations of the Bible.
While most passages have very little or no difference, some passages are so different so as to give us different meaning to what is said.

For me this is not something that would cause me to not have fellowship with any who disagree.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I never said you got your doctrine from man.
It is that your understand, based on the Bible translation is different than my understand based on the KJ I use.
The two translations are very different in what they state.

Daniel 9:27 in the KJ does not use the term "abomination of desolation".
It states "and for the overspreading of abominations (plural, abominations), He shall make it desolate".
Abominations are defined as things detestable, unclean, evil.
Jesus presented Himself to Israel as their Messiah ( to CONFIRMED the covenant). Many believed. But under the leadership of the Pharisees, Israel not only rejected Him, they brought false witness against Him, blasphemed Him, and crucified Him. And after His resurrection, continued to lie and blaspheme Him, and continued to lead the people down a road to destruction.
This is the "overspreading of abominations".
Because of this "overspreading of abominations", He. the Messiah, did indeed make Israel desolate.
He, the Messiah, in 70AD used Titus, the son of the emperor Vespasian (the prince), lead the army of Vespasian (the people of the prince),
to destroy Jerusalem, the Temple, and Israel as a nation. Total and complete desolation of the city, temple, nation, and the land itself.

Here try this.

Matt 24: 15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand),

Jesus is refering this Dan 9.

And as I already proved, it is the Prince who is to come who confirms this covenant, Not messiah.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Brothers, there is often disagreement because we study different translations of the Bible.
While most passages have very little or no difference, some passages are so different so as to give us different meaning to what is said.

For me this is not something that would cause me to not have fellowship with any who disagree.

The kjv does not help you

It words it different (abominations which causes desolation vs abomination of desolation) but they both mean the exact same thing.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The confirmation of the covenant was through the giving of the Holy Spirit, no? In the time between Jesus death and resurrection, and the destruction of Jerusalem. So this would apply to Messiah the Prince (Jesus).

No It was not

That was an ETERNAL covenant, not a covenant which would only last for 1 week (7 years)

The 7 year or 1 week aspect of this covenant PROVES this is not an eternal covenant made wiht blood for the eternal life of mankind.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

In an earlier post I mentioned two keys to understanding the passage correctly:

--that the passage is telling of SEQUENTIAL things

--that the phrase "[the prince] THAT SHALL COME" [v.26] is unnecessary [redundant/superfluous/needlessly-wordy] in the text, IF referring to the same "prince" as was in v.25 [who is Jesus; and "when" THAT pertained]; for it to have said something like "he" or (simply) "the prince" (again) would have sufficed, if it had been referring to the same one, but as it stands, the text [instead] says, "unto the messiah the prince" [and describing His "shall be cut off" before continuing on to speak of]... "the prince THAT SHALL COME"


So, in view of this, I see:

the "he / he / he" of Daniel 9:27[26] IS the "who / who / who" of 2Th2 ['whose/who/whom']… which 2Th2 is covering the entire "7-yr period [70th-Wk]" JUST AS Dan9:27 is (its "BEGINNING" [2Th2:9a], its "MIDDLE [2Th2:4], its "END" [2Th2:8b]--exactly the same in each of these two passages/verse Dan9:27 ('for ONE WEEK [7 yrs]")]; this ["BEGINNING"] correlates also with the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" Jesus spoke about (in His phrasing, "the beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]"), in the FIRST one named in Matt24:4/Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE'" / which "BoBPs [plural]" EQUAL the SEALS of Rev6 [so SEAL #1 being the INITIAL one [see also the singular INITIAL "birth PANG" in 1Th5:2-3], with many more to follow on from that one])

Oops, forgot to mention again the "third key"... which had to do with the...

--"FROM... UNTO" timing, and what things [those] connected (which pertained [also] to "the city"... which is what the overall prophecy pertained to)... mentioned in a previous post (what Jesus SAID in Lk19:41-44 and DID: the Zech9:9 thing, both involving "the city")

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Along with that ^ ...

More info:

"69 weeks connect the Nisan moon of Nehemiah to the Nisan moon of Palm Sunday and the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. No one has presented a timeline that fits the facts so well and with a timeline fitting the dates involved with such fine accuracy."

--Endtime Pilgrim - http://endtimepilgrim.org/70wks8.htm

[caveat--this is not to say I agree with everything at this site]



"And 33 A.D. was not the year of the passion of Jesus. This long and lanky time span of 476 solar years and those extra 25 days does not connect into both Nisan moons for the years in question. Clearly the time span 444 B.C. to 33 A.D. is one year too late. Only the time line 445 B.C. to 32 A.D. fits the facts."

--Endtime Pilgrim [same caveat as above]


"Here are the facts of the matter. Only the year 32 A.D fits the bill. Timespans terminating in 30 A.D., 31 A.D., 33 A.D. or 34 A.D. just won’t cut it. Timespans ending in 31 A.D. and 33 A.D. land in Nisan months that occur too early in the year to fit the 173,880 days. And these timelines actually begin in embolismal years. So they start late. These make for Nisan to Nisan timelines that are too short. They are not long enough to fit in the required number of days for the 69 weeks(sevens) of years. Timespans other than the timespan which terminates in 32 A.D. simply cannot accommodate this long 173,880 day period which overflows 25 days beyond the 476 years.

"We can see that only the timespan #2, beginning in the year 445 B.C. and terminating in 32 A.D. will fit. This is the timespan advanced by Sir Robert Anderson in his classic work, ‘The Coming Prince’. Only this timeline will succeed in connecting into two Nisan moons, the beginning Nisan moon being the one for Nehemiah and the ending Nisan moon being the one for the Passover of our Lord’s crucifixion."

--Gavin Finley M.D. , http://oneyahweh.com/w/index.php/2009/03/12/32-a-d-was-the-crucifixion-year/ ...[endtime pilgrim; Caveat: this is not an endorsement of all of his writings]


[end quoting]

I am familiar with many of the "translation" issues... I disagree with what some suggest pertaining to it...

 

[SpoonJuly]

Here try this.

Matt 24: 15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand),

Jesus is refering this Dan 9.

And as I already proved, it is the Prince who is to come who confirms this covenant, Not messiah.

Daniel speaks of the antichrist by several names in several chapters, but not chapter 9.

The kjv does not help you

It words it different (abominations which causes desolation vs abomination of desolation) but they both mean the exact same thing.

No they do not mean the same thing.

No It was not

That was an ETERNAL covenant, not a covenant which would only last for 1 week (7 years)

The 7 year or 1 week aspect of this covenant PROVES this is not an eternal covenant made wiht blood for the eternal life of mankind.

Messiah means deliverer
THE covenant was confirmed and WOULD be fulfilled at the end of the 70 week.
69 week were past, one week remained.
The first half of that seventh week was the ministry of Jesus, the second half is yet to come.

Another note---
Matthew 24:2-3
Jesus was referring to more than the temple's destruction. He was foretelling what would happen in 70AD.
The Temple, the city, the Nation being totally destroyed.
Notice the disciples asked in verse 3, " when will these things be? AND what will be the sign of coming, and the end of the world?"

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Daniel speaks of the antichrist by several names in several chapters, but not chapter 9.

Oh? Who is the future prince of rome that daniel speaks of in Dan 9?

No they do not mean the same thing.

Yes they do.

Look up in the greek. It means an unclean thing is placed in the wing of the temple. Ie the most holy place. Making it desolate. There is only one other place that I think of. And that referee to Antiochus epiphanies. The greek leader who slaughtered a pig in the holy place. In dan 9, and in matt 24, we see Jesus said this is yet future.

Messiah means deliverer
THE covenant was confirmed and WOULD be fulfilled at the end of the 70 week.
69 week were past, one week remained.
The first half of that seventh week was the ministry of Jesus, the second half is yet to come.

So it took 7 years after the death of christ for sin to be forgiven?

um no,,, the passage said at the end of 69 week (literally immediately following) it did ntgo say in the middle of the 70th week.

And as I proved, the prince is THE ONE WHO WAS TO COME, Not Christ, and HIS PEOPLE DESTROYED THE CITY (rome)

It refers to the final roman beast spoken of by daniel in Dan 2 and 7 and other passages, and also in rev.

Another note---
Matthew 24:2-3
Jesus was referring to more than the temple's destruction. He was foretelling what would happen in 70AD.
The Temple, the city, the Nation being totally destroyed.
Notice the disciples asked in verse 3, " when will these things be? AND what will be the sign of coming, and the end of the world?"

NO, An abomination of desolation makes the temple UNCLEAN. You can not make an abomination of desolation of a temple that is not there

In matt 24. He spoke of ad 70 (no stone will be left) but he also spoke of the end, and also his return.

The abomination of desolation would be a sign to know CHrist will return soon. Because immediately after, there will be great tribulation such as never been seen before and after, so great, Christ will have to return to put an end else no life survive . (Ie an extinction event)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Brothers, there is often disagreement because we study different translations of the Bible.
While most passages have very little or no difference, some passages are so different so as to give us different meaning to what is said.

Agreed. I've noticed some significant differences in certain passages and have posted about it before. The following is one such post:

[quoting my post from a different convo]

Here's a verse I believe is inaccurate according to how the esv has it (compared with ylt, just for example):

esv - "and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before [pro - G4253] the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain"

ylt - "And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from [ apo - G575] the foundation of the world"

https://biblehub.com/text/revelation/13-8.htm - Revelation 13:8


kjv [another comparison] - "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from [ apo - G575] the foundation of the world."


Huge difference between "slain from [apo - G575]" and "written before [pro - G4253]" ; ) (I believe "slain from [apo - G575]" is accurate)

For this reason, I tend to avoid the esv. I do think it's the trendy one to go with, these days, but this verse ^ is always flashing in my mind [think: neon lights] when I hear of it. :/


[end of that quoted post]

____________

The difference made, here, is massive.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The two translations are very different in what they state.

Daniel 9:27 in the KJ does not use the term "abomination of desolation".
It states "and for the overspreading of abominations (plural, abominations), He shall make it desolate".

Notice also that v.26 says "desolaTIONS [plural] are determined"...

and, in the "70ad section" of the Olivet Discourse, Lk21:12-24a, it says in verse 20 "[when ye shall SEE Jerusalem compassed with armies], then know that the desolation [SINGULAR] thereof is nigh."

...then we must take into consideration the placement of the wording in v.32 ("TILL ALL be fulfilled") which must necessarily INCLUDE that which v.24 had just stated ("...and shall be led away captive into all the nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, UNTIL the TIMES of the Gentiles be fulfilled" [which "TIMES of the Gentiles" (distinct from the phrase 'the FULNESS of the Gentiles') refers to "Gentile domination over Israel" as in Neb's dream of the "image/statue" with Neb as "head of gold" and which STARTED in 606bc (and which does NOT speak of "this present age [singular]"/Church age)--and pertains, I believe to the phrase found in Rev17:8 "when they behold the beast that WAS, and IS NOT, and YET SHALL BE [future]"])...