I have a question: of the 102 times that the expression "the covenant" show up in the word of God:
2 refer to the covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:12,17)
4 refer to the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17:11; I Chronicles 16:16; Acts 3:25; 7:8)
1 refers to the covenant with David (II Chronicles 21:17)
6 refer to the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:32,33; Hebrews 8:9,10; 10:16,29)
88 refer to the old covenant that he made with Israel by the hand of Moses when he brought them out of Egypt)
So why why would the only other one, Daniel 9:27, refer to some other kind of covenant, like a military or political agreement?
Even earlier in Daniel 9:4, and a little later in Daniel 11:22, it is still referring to the old covenant.
So why make this one, this one and only one, occurrence of "the covenant" to mean something different?
Maybe because it fits better with current headlines, since Israel is not abiding by the old covenant at the moment.
But what if this fellow in Daniel 9:27 does exactly that?
What if he confirms "the covenant", so that Israel would be then following the old covenant, including the daily sacrifices?
Even the Strong's word #01285 is used 93% of the time for covenant.
Therefore, why do so many insist that Daniel 9:27 must mean anything else but the old covenant?
Simply because someone can say that the word could be another word doesn't make it so.
It is wise to stick with the book.
After all, isn't the same fellow that confirms "the covenant", the same one who also breaks it?
And causes the daily sacrifices to cease, and places the abomination that maketh desolate?
So the latter end is his dealing with the old covenant by breaking it and profaning it.
So why cannot the earlier part deal with the the old covenant by his confirming it?

        Thank you,
            Gino