..The author's twisting of God's Word

The word "Twisting " is thrown around a lot and has no meaning unless you prove it. This could be repeated back to you.

The end of verse 26 and the beginning of verse 27 is where you find the gap

The gap is not in the text. You see it there because of your presuppositions. If did not have a need for a gap you would not see it. The idea of a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of Daniel is not consistent with a literal interpretation of the text. The most straightforward reading of Daniel 9 suggests a continuous narrative rather than the insertion of an arbitrary gap that could extend indefinitely. It's important to grasp the purpose of this prophecy: it communicates God’s timing in His redemptive plan. Introducing a gap without defined parameters is not supported by the text and does not facilitate a clear understanding. It is only done to support your view.

Furthermore, simply inserting a gap does not resolve all the challenges faced by dispensationalists. They must also include a "rapture" to account for the removal of what God established during the "gap." The tendency to insert a gap and a rapture into the narrative stems from personal assumptions rather than the intended meaning of Scripture.

Daniel together with Revelation and get the full picture

You are assuming no-one has done this. I'm nearly 100% certain that every poster here has read Revelation. I wrote a book on Revelation. This is not meant to be a "shut up because I know it all" statement. Just letting you know, that I have read both books and I feel confident with the Amil view.

I only hope the curse decreed by Christ in Revelation doesn't fall on you.

wow..chill out.

The last week is still a seven of years. One that is made separate from the rest. This idea of separation can also be found in the preceding verses. The beginning of verse 26 (Then after the sixty-two weeks…) considers the 62weeks as separate from the earlier 7weeks, though it happened just after it. In fact the very idea that he confirms the covenant for one week already makes it separate from the rest.

The covenant he confirms has a finite timeline as such you can't call it the eternal covenant. Also he stops the sacrifices during the week and that doesn't speak in anyway of Christ's work. The author's twisting of God's Word is truly concerning.

Finally.. read Daniel together with Revelation and get the full picture. I only hope the curse decreed by Christ in Revelation doesn't fall on you.

I take this to be Israel bringing to it’s fullness their rebellion as referred to by Jesus in Matthew 23:32 ‘
Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers’. (NASV)

Your post is clear and concise. I’m largely sympathetic toward this interpretation. I think what helped me see the viability of this reading was the JETS article by the late J. Barton Payne. One thing that has been a head-scratcher for me is Dan. 9:27.

When the text says, “he confirmed or made a firm covenant with the many for one week,” I’ve had a tough time with the 2nd half: “with the many for one week.” In my mind, the prepositional phrase “for one week” seems to confine this covenant to a finite time period.

Now, I understand this covenant to be the New one, which Hebrews 13 characterizes as the “blood of the eternal covenant.” If Dan. 9:27 has the New Covenant in view or even the theological covenant of grace, then it seems contradictory to Hebrews and even other Old Testament declarations of the covenant as found in Jeremiah 32, Ezekiel 36 & 37.

Is the “for one week” phrase restrictive? Or does the original Hebrew allow for reading it as within one week?”