Daniel 9:26: And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Triablogue discusses the liberal interpretation of this verse and makes an excellent observation. The liberal understanding of this passage is that it refers to the Antiochean crisis. Yet, Daniel 9:26 speaks of the Second Temple and Jerusalem being destroyed. If Daniel was writing after the Antiochean crisis and trying to make a “prophecy” fit what happened, then why would he mention events that never occurred during that time period? As Triablogue says:
If, according to the liberal reconstruction, the anonymous author of Daniel was writing “prophecy” after the fact, if he was writing history in the guise of prophecy, how could he be so inaccurate about something so important and so well-known–both to himself and his immediate audience?