Earlier in this thread, I correctly pointed out that Daniel 9:27 does not say that Jerusalem would be destroyed. For completeness I will also add that although Daniel 9:26 says the city would be 'destroyed', the actual word used in the original text (Strongs H7843) means corrupted rather than destroyed in the sense of perished (Strongs H6), desolated (Strongs H2717), erased (Strongs H4871) or completely destroyed (Strongs H2763). See also Daniel 11:31; 12:11.
Evidence associated with the piel and hiphil as the predominant conjugation stems suggests that the verb signifies an act of ruthless destruction subjecting the object to complete annihilation or decimating and corrupting it so thoroughly that its demise is certain. The only difference is that the piel has resultative meaning, being used when the reference is to acts of destruction already carried out, whereas the hiphil emphasizes the subject’s intent to carry out such destruction, being used when the reference is to current or durative acts of this sort.J. Conrad, “שָׁחַת,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. Douglas W. Stott (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), 584.
To destroy or not to destroy? No Jeffro, your clarification does not work for me. Jesus describes the occasion best. I'll go with his version on the matter. His explanation, of not a stone upon a stone remaining, describes it as it turned out in the end: "As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." (Luke 21:6 ESV)
15 "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. (Matt. 24:15-16 ESV)
He could even warn his people to flee, and they did.