Question: I believe you add to the Word of God to make a point.

Question: I believe that you sometimes add to the Word of God to make your point. For example, to Daniel:9:27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
See All... you added the words, “breaking the covenant.” This concept is in no way found in the original text. To Daniel:8:25And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
See All... you added the words “at the Second Coming” to make this appear to be a prophecy concerning a future Antichrist. Here again, there is nothing in the text about the Second Coming of Christ; you had to add to the Word of God to try to make it appear plausible.

Response: Your claim that I added to God’s Word is most serious. I would never do so. The words you say I added are in brackets, which you surely know indicates a commentary that is not part of the quotation. Comments, interpretations, and observations regarding Scripture are a normal part of teaching, not additions to God’s Word.

You say Christ confirmed a covenant with Israel for Daniel’s 70th week. What covenant? In the midst of the week He “caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease”? When did that happen? “He,” in Daniel:9:27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
See All..., can only refer to the nearest previous person, “the prince that shall come” after Messiah is cut off (v. 26), whose people would “destroy the city and the sanctuary”—a prophecy of the Roman destruction of AD 70. Titus could not have been the “prince that shall come” because he made no such covenant. This must refer to Antichrist. It certainly was not fulfilled by Christ during His earthly ministry. I am not reading into this passage something that isn’t there.

Logically, “the sacrifice and the oblation” could not be “caused to cease” had they not been resumed upon the rebuilding of the temple by the imposition (the meaning of the Hebrew) of the covenant for the 70th week. None of this has happened, and certainly not during Christ’s earthly ministry. I am not “adding to the Word of God” in coming to this conclusion, but it follows as a reasonable commentary upon these scriptures.

When did “Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century BC,” as you claim, “stand up against the Prince of princes [i.e., Christ]” and was “broken without hand” (Daniel:8:25And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
See All...)? It didn’t happen. Disagree with me if you wish, but I did not add to God’s Word when I simply indicated that this must be Antichrist’s being destroyed by Christ in the Second Coming. “Without hand” is surely a reference to the “stone…cut out without hands” that destroys the image and becomes the mountain that fills the whole earth and is the kingdom established by Christ (2:34-45) at His Second Coming. It certainly hasn’t happened yet and can only be a future event.