pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

V1 - This supposed vision takes places in the 1st year of the reign of Darius the son of Ahasuerus also known as Xerxes.

V2- Says that the writer understood the people of the god (Jews) would be in desolation for 70 years. He understands this from Jeremiah 25:11-12 where it indicates the Jews would serve the Babylonians for 70 years and then ".. will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.." But, instead Cyrus takes the city of Babylon without bloodshed and it is inhabited far after Alexander conquers the Persians.

V 3 to v19 is the writer discussing all of the sins of the Jews in  prayer acknowledging their sins, then he finally asked for help for Israel.

V20 to 27 is the appearance of Gabriel who explains the vision. 70 weeks are given to Israel and Jerusalem to end their transgression, and make an end of their sins, as well as to forgive iniquity, and then to begin an  everlasting righteousness, and to seal  the vision and the  prophet, and finally to anoint the most holy place.

He also says from the time word has been given to restore &  rebuild Jerusalem until one anointed, a prince, will be 7 weeks;

and then for threescore and 2 weeks (62 weeks) it will be built again, with broad place and moat but in troubling times.  After the 62 weeks an anointed one will be “cut off” (a euphemism for killed) and will be no more;

then the people of a prince will “destroy” Jerusalem and the sanctuary (temple) however his end (the prince) will will be with a flood, until the end of the war desolations are determined. He (the prince) will make a covenant for 1 week; and for half of the week he will cause the sacrifice and offerings to cease. This will continue until  that which caused the appalment has been exterminated. 

- paraphrased from JPS Hebrew Bible Daniel 9

A fitting description of Antiochus IV and what occurs as Daniel says the "prince" will do.

The 70 weeks are used because the writer of Daniel was aware of Jeremiah's prophecy and he knew that the Jews were captives for 70 years.

The 7 weeks are 7 years of weeks beginning in circa 586 BCE or 49 years ending with Cyrus as the anointed one, note Isaiah referred to Cyrus as the anointed one. This is within 1 year, close enough for the poor historian writer of Daniel. It's not like someone was going to Google it in 165 BCE and verify it as so many dates were based on the reigns of kings.

The 62 weeks are 62 weeks of years or until the Maccabee times, actually it's off by a few years but considering what a poor history student the writer of Daniel was it's close enough. The 2nd anointed one who is "cut off" or killed is Onais who is murdered.

The 1 week covenant is the one Antiochus made but halfway into it, 1/2 week, he broke it or 3 1/2 years.

The text seems to indicate the city and the Temple will be destroyed, though it doesn't actually say that, the actual word used in Hebrew was “shachach” which means to corrupt, ruin, destroy or cause decay.. according to Strong's concordance. In the view of a pious Jew, what Antiochus did was exactly that, corrupt or cause decay and ruin.

One thing to note is the text calls for 2 anointed ones not one. And the wording is not THE Messiah but a messiah.

You can now argue how you see the 70 weeks prophecy, the 7 weeks, the 62 weeks, the 1 week covenant, and the half week.

 

*edit corrected (sp)

 

 

Vs 1  No issue at this time.

Vs 2  The fulfillment of this prophecy began to be fulfilled at this time. It would be many years in the future before this prophecy would come to full fruition. The point that after 70 years this great kingdom would come to it's end, which was so important to the Jews in Daniels day was fulfilled immediately after the 70 years ended.

Vs 3 - 19  I will comment some on Daniel's prayer later.

Vs 20 - 23  No issue at this time. Simply Gabriel coming to explain, or give understanding.

The rest of your interpretation I must reject outright since your starting date has no basis.

Using the only possible valid starting dates (when decrees or commands were actually issued) your interpretation cannot possibly work.

1st decree 537 or 538 BC puts your theory about 130 years off.

2nd decree 519 BC puts your theory about 140 years off.

3rd decree 457 BC puts your theory about 200 years off.

It is the 3rd decree that addresses both issues. To restore (allowing the establishment of both civil and religious government), and rebuild (allowing the city to be physically rebuilt). Therefore most scholars use this date.

Interestingly enough 454 BC takes the fulfillment of this prophecy down to the time of Christ. But you can't except that. Therefore you try to stretch out the starting date to a point where you can "puzzle fit" it into your own theory so that it will not validate God. 

That's right, anytime one uses logic to show how the evidence points towards God, the atheist calls it "wild assumptions".

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Some scholars believe that this passage may refer to the "New Jerusalem", that will endure throughout long ages.

Once again the "skeptic" builds up a problem that exists only in his own mind, than go so far as to try to turn a prophecy into a decree.

 

Think about what you wrote here, what does some scholars believe mean?

It's an opinion by unknown scholars which is so vague you don't even have a name attached to it.

Do you think this magically gives this statement credibility and legitimacy somehow?

A scholar in Kansas believes the Grand canyon is proof positive that the Flood of Noah is real.

So what? Why should I care what an unknown person believes?

This is somehow giving the statement the "power of legitimacy"?

If you present a view you wish to be considered give the name of the "scholars".

Example - Steve Jones a professor at Liberty University claims the Grand Canyon was made when the Flood occurred as described in Genesis. This way at least I'd know what I was dealing with.

The technique of using some people say is well developed by the American Media. It's a favorite technique used on Fox News. Watch Brit Hume, John Gibson, Shepard Smith, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly for about 10 or 15 minutes and count the number of times they do it on any given day.

Some people say is used in various forms, sometimes straight up, sometimes as you did, scholars say or believe, the public says, citizens say, economists believe, sources indicate, blah, blah....

In perusing Fox News' web site this morning in "News Stories" I found these in a few minutes -

"Federal investigators are known . . . . " - see - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/02/senator-calls-atf-allegations-agency-allowing-guns-mexico/

"Economists predict that the . . " - see - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/03/investors-focus-retail-sales-jobless-claims/

"Small-business owners are already aware of this fact. Some NFIB members have learned from their insurance carriers that their current plans will soon vanish because the insurance company will no longer offer them.

See - http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/01/joined-obamacare-lawsuit-florida-behalf-small-business-owners/

And Bill O'Reilly for example - Egypt and the Far Left on 2/1 - in his talking points he refers to an ABC commentator Sam Donaldson, in his remarks Donaldson is praising Al Jazera and says, some people say ... then later O'Reilly says, "any fair minded person that follows Al-Jazera...."

Look and listen to what you are being fed by the media and consider all of the unfounded assertions that are thrown you way every day.

Is it any wonder you did it here?

As I too live in the USA I may slip up and do this upon occasion as well, I try not to. I try to indicate when something is my opinion. I do give you references even Christian that both support and argue against my views. I only suggest you do the same and try to minimize the Media influence of Some People Say.

 

 

You are right. Point well taken. Talk radio hosts of course seem to abuse this the most. I will watch myself on this.

For now, we will leave it as...I believe that this "can" be interpreted to include events later in history. The text does not state that this was to all be accomplished immediately. You are free to disagree.

 

The first decree listed above was made by Cyrus (538 or 537 BC) to be found in Ezra 1. "In the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia". This decree was for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, and did not address specifically the city itself. Therefore I prefer the latter decree. This information is easily verified by a quick search of Cyrus the Great on Wikipedia.

The second decree listed above was made by Darius I (520 or 519 BC) to be found in Ezra 4 and 5. 4:24 the building ceased unto the second year of Darius. And in Ezra 5:15 Darius issues a decree to resume the rebuilding. This also covers primarily the temple.

The third decree listed above was made by Artaxerxes I (~457 BC) to be found in Ezra 7. This decree provides the funding, and also authorized the establishment of some self governance. That is why I prefer this one. This set the stage for the rebuilding of Jerusalem which Nehemiah became a leader in accomplishing. The date for this decree can also be verified by a quick Wikipedia search of Artaxerxes I.

 

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

The first decree listed above was made by Cyrus (538 or 537 BC) to be found in Ezra 1. "In the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia". This decree was for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, and did not address specifically the city itself. Therefore I prefer the latter decree. This information is easily verified by a quick search of Cyrus the Great on Wikipedia.

The second decree listed above was made by Darius I (520 or 519 BC) to be found in Ezra 4 and 5. 4:24 the building ceased unto the second year of Darius. And in Ezra 5:15 Darius issues a decree to resume the rebuilding. This also covers primarily the temple.

The third decree listed above was made by Artaxerxes I (~457 BC) to be found in Ezra 7. This decree provides the funding, and also authorized the establishment of some self governance. That is why I prefer this one. This set the stage for the rebuilding of Jerusalem which Nehemiah became a leader in accomplishing. The date for this decree can also be verified by a quick Wikipedia search of Artaxerxes I.

 

Daniel 9:1-2 (JPS)indicate the Jews would be in captivity for 70 years, which is based on Jeremiah 25:11(JPS). Read all of it if you like, it doesn't mention multiple decrees. Also read Jeremiah 31(JPS) which indicates that Jerusalem would be rebuilt. No time frames are mentioned. Daniel 9 was supposedly written in about 538 BCE.

Daniel continued by saying after 7 weeks of 7 meaning 49 years an anointed one would come, which is Cyrus obviously as mentioned by Isaiah as one who was anointed. Next there are 62 weeks of 7 ( or years) taking us to the time of the Maccabees.

You arbitrarily have decided to start your clock after the last supposed decree in Ezra.

Daniel's clock was already ticking away before that.

You are conveniently waiting to start your clock so it will allow you to claim Jesus as one anointed. Please note THE messiah is not used in reference to Daniel 9, see the JPS translation, it is one anointed in 2 places.

Daniel 9:25 (JPS) refers to Cyrus - 1st anointed one.

Daniel 9:26(JPS) refers to another anointed who is "cut off" (killed) and refers to Onais.

I understand your need to hold back the start date so Jesus can be the "ONE" but you have no basis to do so.

1. No, Daniel does not mention "multiple decrees". History however, does give us more than one possible decree to consider as we evaluate this prophecy. All of these decrees are "after" the fall of Babylon. None are before this. You still cannot make a prophecy into a decree. That is what you have to do to make the AE IV theory fit. Cowles prefers the decree of Artaxerxes I in his 20th year, that being 454 BC. All of these decrees rule out this referring the days of the Maccabees, and put this time frame down in the time of Christ.

2. Yes, Jeremiah did "predict" that Jerusalem would be rebuilt. Predict, not Decree.

3. Verse 25 unfortunately the Hebrew text was not written in English. Interpreters often insert words into the text in order for them to convey the meaning to the best of their understanding. This can result sometimes in a less than accurate translation.

Verse 25 as translated word by word from the Hebrew.

"Know - and discern - at - the issuing - of a decree - to restore - and rebuild - Jerusalem - until - Messiah - the prince - weeks - seven - weeks - and threescore - and two - again - will be built - plaza - and moat - of distress - times."

http://www.biblos.com/daniel/9-24.htm

Here we have a "sandwich" text. 1. the decree to restore Jerusalem. 2. Messiah the prince with a time frame. 3. The restoration of Jerusalem again but with no time frame.

It does not matter which of the above decrees I use to "start the clock", this prophecy cannot refer to the days of the Maccabees. The decrees that best fit this prophecy do however, fit the events reported to have happened to Christ. That is what you are unwilling to accept.

4. Yes, the anointed, or Messiah is mentioned in two places. That does not mean that it is referring to two different persons.

It looks like the gloves just do not fit AE IV and Onais.

 

You have decided to completely ignore that Daniel has a 7 weeks of 7 or 49 years and a 62 weeks of 7 or 434 years. You need to do this in order to only use the entire time period so you ignore  2 that are anointed as well such that you can squeeze Jesus in as the anointed.

1- Somehow you have become hung up on decrees to validate your position. You complicate this such that even a PF Flyers Johnny Quest Decoder Ring will be unable to decipher.

I really don't care what Cowles has to say on this as I previously mentioned I do not agree with all of his interpretations as in the end he was a Christian like you but saw the "little horn" and the stories of Daniel to be generally prophecies about the Maccabees and Antiochus.

2-Jeremiah did supposedly make a prophecy and Jeremiah is held to be a prophet of the Jews while Daniel's books are just considered to be "writings".

Once again you are hung up on decrees, time to remove that "rose colored" welding helmet.

3- Yes interpreters do insert words and you pick the KJV to use as a source while I picked the JPS.

Jewish interpretations vs. Christian.

Dan 9:25 KJV  - "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."

and JPS - "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times."

The difference here is the Christian KJV in order to promote Jesus as "THE MESSIAH" uses different words for  "unto one anointed" to be "the Messiah the Prince." Though of course Cyrus was a prince though you want it to be something else.

 

KJV - "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."

JPS- " Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place."

Do you see the differences here? The JPS is discussing the city and the Temple while you want it to be Jesus anointed as "the most holy".

 

4-Once again you have decided to make it THE MESSIAH not a messiah and ignore that there were 2 periods discussed between them.

You may want to clean that Johnny Quest decoder ring.

 

Concerning biblical interpretations, I do not consider any of them to be 100% accurate. The KJV is written by those who have a Christian perspective. Therefore when coming to a text in question the interpreter would be inclined to view this with Christian colored glasses. Likewise the JPS, being written from a perspective that denies Jesus as the Messiah would be inclined to interpret a text in question in such a way that it does not validate Christianity.

Therefore, I read more than one interpretation, as well as some commentary, and go to a good lexicon such as Strongs. If I still have question, I dig a little deeper.

That being said, we must keep in mind that the original Hebrew did not have periods, commas, quotation marks, and other punctuation as we do. All that was added, and can indeed change the meaning of a text.

That being said we can take a closer look at the text going back a few verses.

9:21 Gabriel comes "whom I had seen in the vision". Both JPS and KJV use the word vision from the Hebrew (chazon) which always only means (vision). Than comes the phrase "at the beginning" (techillah) meaning before, previously, or the first time.

Daniel in chapter 8 is left confused and disturbed by the vision he had just experienced. Gabriel came and explained some of it but not all. Daniel was still perplexed, but he was not to be left hanging forever.

In chapter 9 Gabriel returns. Daniel recognizes him from before when he came to give understanding of chapter 8. Daniel's mind is on his previous vision "the one whom I had seen in the vision" "at the beginning" or the first time.

9:22 "I have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding."

9:23 "consider the word, and understand the vision." Both JPS and KJV use the word vision here. What vision do you suppose he could be referring to? I suppose we will once again try to make this a reference to a prophecy and not a vision.

9:24 "Seventy weeks are decreed concerning your people and the holy city" Here many translators ran into a problem. The word for decreed is (chathak) meaning "to cut off, or amputate". Seventy weeks are "amputated" concerning your people? What does that mean. The word decreed, or determined was substituted and the sentence made sense.

When one sees this as Gabriel returning to give Daniel understanding concerning chapter 8, this all makes sense. Seventy weeks are cut off or amputated from the 2300 symbolic days, or years in Daniel 8.

We do not have to "puzzle fit" to understand this one.

Given this perspective we can better understand the following verses. 

jcgadfly wrote:

Damn, gramster.

You can't go two sentences without contradicting yourself., can you?

You show a perfect, textbook example of how the writers and translators used "puzzle fitting" to get to their desired message. Then yousay that there was no "puzzle fitting" required.

Did you come to this while you were reading your (Chrisitan focused) bible translations, your (Christian) commentaries or from (the Christian) James Strong's concordance/lexicon?

Various translations of the Bible can include "puzzle fitting" for personal agendas. That's why I do not depend on any of them. As for Strong's concordance/lexicon being from a Christian source, I would like to know if you have any credible lexicons that are not of Christian origin that you can recommend?

Going back to the original language is not "puzzle fitting". It is helpful in uncovering the bias of bible interpreters, and understanding the meaning of the text.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

Concerning biblical interpretations, I do not consider any of them to be 100% accurate. The KJV is written by those who have a Christian perspective. Therefore when coming to a text in question the interpreter would be inclined to view this with Christian colored glasses. Likewise the JPS, being written from a perspective that denies Jesus as the Messiah would be inclined to interpret a text in question in such a way that it does not validate Christianity.

Therefore, I read more than one interpretation, as well as some commentary, and go to a good lexicon such as Strongs. If I still have question, I dig a little deeper.

That being said, we must keep in mind that the original Hebrew did not have periods, commas, quotation marks, and other punctuation as we do. All that was added, and can indeed change the meaning of a text.

That being said we can take a closer look at the text going back a few verses.

9:21 Gabriel comes "whom I had seen in the vision". Both JPS and KJV use the word vision from the Hebrew (chazon) which always only means (vision). Than comes the phrase "at the beginning" (techillah) meaning before, previously, or the first time.

Daniel in chapter 8 is left confused and disturbed by the vision he had just experienced. Gabriel came and explained some of it but not all. Daniel was still perplexed, but he was not to be left hanging forever.

In chapter 9 Gabriel returns. Daniel recognizes him from before when he came to give understanding of chapter 8. Daniel's mind is on his previous vision "the one whom I had seen in the vision" "at the beginning" or the first time.

9:22 "I have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding."

9:23 "consider the word, and understand the vision." Both JPS and KJV use the word vision here. What vision do you suppose he could be referring to? I suppose we will once again try to make this a reference to a prophecy and not a vision.

9:24 "Seventy weeks are decreed concerning your people and the holy city" Here many translators ran into a problem. The word for decreed is (chathak) meaning "to cut off, or amputate". Seventy weeks are "amputated" concerning your people? What does that mean. The word decreed, or determined was substituted and the sentence made sense.

When one sees this as Gabriel returning to give Daniel understanding concerning chapter 8, this all makes sense. Seventy weeks are cut off or amputated from the 2300 symbolic days, or years in Daniel 8.

We do not have to "puzzle fit" to understand this one.

Given this perspective we can better understand the following verses. 

Concerning Biblical translations and interpretations I consider all to be suspect and driven to promote certain agendas. You have adequately demonstrated this as do the Jewish Websites I have previously suggested you peruse. In this regard one should consider where the source material originated. The source material was from a Jewish perspective without regard to proving that the Jesus was "the one". The KJV OTOH was translated from poor sources in many cases, see Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" for examples. The overall intent of the KJV was to support and substantiate the Christian perspective while the Jewish scriptures were a continuation of the propaganda of the Jews are "the chosen people of the god".

Daniel it would appear was confused for a very long time as the timespan from Chapter 8 to Chapter 9 was in excess of 5 years.

We do not have to puzzle fit at all when you really detach yourself from acceptance of this text as having meaning beyond those that were the intended recepients, the Jews of the 2nd century BCE. That you have the goal of proving it shows the god is real distracts you from understanding what was really going on. As you have demonstrated repeatedly in this thread.

All of the anceint texts of the Jews are based in legends and the mists of the ancients where magic occurred commonly. It seems the god has left for parts unknown and fails to demonstrate his powers in a world that could verify and record such actions. Your attempts to prove Daniel means something more than a 2nd century BCE writer's warning and wake up call to the people of his religious persuasion are filled with your deep desire to show there is something more than what there is. So far you have nothing but conjecture and your asserted interpretations using your Johnny Quest Decoder Ring.

That seems to be a sure fire out for the atheist. Whenever faced with simple logic that point to facts they do not like, it becomes conjecture.

This is logic based upon textual evidence.

1. Chapter 8 Daniel has a vision. Most of it is explained by Gabriel, without question. The last part concerning time is quite obvious if it was written by a 2nd century BC author and refers to literal days. But "Nobody" understood it. This includes Daniel. Daniel does not understand the 2300 days.

2. 5 years later Gabriel returns. Daniel has had plenty of time to ponder and pray. Immediately Daniel recognizes him as the one he had seen before in vision. What vision? Only one comes to mind that makes sense. That would be the vision in chapter 8 that was not understood.

3. This is backed up by Gabriel's "mission statement". He had come to help Daniel understand "the vision". Not rocket science.

4. Without missing a beat Gabriel continues. "70 weeks are (cut off or amputated). This time has been cut off from something. What could that be? Going back to the subject in question we find the time prophecy about the 2300 days that were not understood.

Daniel 8 was written in symbolic language. Beasts for nations, horns for kings or kingdoms, and yes, not unlikely days for years. Daniel 9 was not written in symbolic language. Therefore the time is given in terms specific to mean years.

No Johnny Quest decoder ring needed. Just simple common sense. 

That seems to be a sure fire out for the atheist. Whenever faced with simple logic that point to facts they do not like, it becomes conjecture.

This is logic based upon textual evidence.

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

Concerning biblical interpretations, I do not consider any of them to be 100% accurate. The KJV is written by those who have a Christian perspective. Therefore when coming to a text in question the interpreter would be inclined to view this with Christian colored glasses. Likewise the JPS, being written from a perspective that denies Jesus as the Messiah would be inclined to interpret a text in question in such a way that it does not validate Christianity.

Therefore, I read more than one interpretation, as well as some commentary, and go to a good lexicon such as Strongs. If I still have question, I dig a little deeper.

That being said, we must keep in mind that the original Hebrew did not have periods, commas, quotation marks, and other punctuation as we do. All that was added, and can indeed change the meaning of a text.

That being said we can take a closer look at the text going back a few verses.

9:21 Gabriel comes "whom I had seen in the vision". Both JPS and KJV use the word vision from the Hebrew (chazon) which always only means (vision). Than comes the phrase "at the beginning" (techillah) meaning before, previously, or the first time.

Daniel in chapter 8 is left confused and disturbed by the vision he had just experienced. Gabriel came and explained some of it but not all. Daniel was still perplexed, but he was not to be left hanging forever.

In chapter 9 Gabriel returns. Daniel recognizes him from before when he came to give understanding of chapter 8. Daniel's mind is on his previous vision "the one whom I had seen in the vision" "at the beginning" or the first time.

9:22 "I have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding."

9:23 "consider the word, and understand the vision." Both JPS and KJV use the word vision here. What vision do you suppose he could be referring to? I suppose we will once again try to make this a reference to a prophecy and not a vision.

9:24 "Seventy weeks are decreed concerning your people and the holy city" Here many translators ran into a problem. The word for decreed is (chathak) meaning "to cut off, or amputate". Seventy weeks are "amputated" concerning your people? What does that mean. The word decreed, or determined was substituted and the sentence made sense.

When one sees this as Gabriel returning to give Daniel understanding concerning chapter 8, this all makes sense. Seventy weeks are cut off or amputated from the 2300 symbolic days, or years in Daniel 8.

We do not have to "puzzle fit" to understand this one.

Given this perspective we can better understand the following verses. 

Concerning Biblical translations and interpretations I consider all to be suspect and driven to promote certain agendas. You have adequately demonstrated this as do the Jewish Websites I have previously suggested you peruse. In this regard one should consider where the source material originated. The source material was from a Jewish perspective without regard to proving that the Jesus was "the one". The KJV OTOH was translated from poor sources in many cases, see Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" for examples. The overall intent of the KJV was to support and substantiate the Christian perspective while the Jewish scriptures were a continuation of the propaganda of the Jews are "the chosen people of the god".

Daniel it would appear was confused for a very long time as the timespan from Chapter 8 to Chapter 9 was in excess of 5 years.

We do not have to puzzle fit at all when you really detach yourself from acceptance of this text as having meaning beyond those that were the intended recepients, the Jews of the 2nd century BCE. That you have the goal of proving it shows the god is real distracts you from understanding what was really going on. As you have demonstrated repeatedly in this thread.

All of the anceint texts of the Jews are based in legends and the mists of the ancients where magic occurred commonly. It seems the god has left for parts unknown and fails to demonstrate his powers in a world that could verify and record such actions. Your attempts to prove Daniel means something more than a 2nd century BCE writer's warning and wake up call to the people of his religious persuasion are filled with your deep desire to show there is something more than what there is. So far you have nothing but conjecture and your asserted interpretations using your Johnny Quest Decoder Ring.

That seems to be a sure fire out for the atheist. Whenever faced with simple logic that point to facts they do not like, it becomes conjecture.

This is logic based upon textual evidence.

1. Chapter 8 Daniel has a vision. Most of it is explained by Gabriel, without question. The last part concerning time is quite obvious if it was written by a 2nd century BC author and refers to literal days. But "Nobody" understood it. This includes Daniel. Daniel does not understand the 2300 days.

2. 5 years later Gabriel returns. Daniel has had plenty of time to ponder and pray. Immediately Daniel recognizes him as the one he had seen before in vision. What vision? Only one comes to mind that makes sense. That would be the vision in chapter 8 that was not understood.

3. This is backed up by Gabriel's "mission statement". He had come to help Daniel understand "the vision". Not rocket science.

4. Without missing a beat Gabriel continues. "70 weeks are (cut off or amputated). This time has been cut off from something. What could that be? Going back to the subject in question we find the time prophecy about the 2300 days that were not understood.

Daniel 8 was written in symbolic language. Beasts for nations, horns for kings or kingdoms, and yes, not unlikely days for years. Daniel 9 was not written in symbolic language. Therefore the time is given in terms specific to mean years.

No Johnny Quest decoder ring needed. Just simple common sense. 

Especially when you can shift from "decreed" to "cut off/amputated" as you need to do so.

No rocket science - just some old fashioned political manure

I did not just make up the definition "cut off/amputated". The Lexicon of Hebrew words (ie: Strongs) defines the word used "chathak" as "A primitive root; properly to cut off".

I have requested that you provide a credible non-Christian Lexicon source for me to use if you don't like the ones I currently refer to. I have no reason to believe that Strongs definition here has been influenced by Christian thinking. Especially since this view is in the minority among Christians.

When examining a text, I do not rely merely on common translations of the bible. It is best to go back to the Hebrew to help get a better perspective.

It is called thinking for myself, rather than relying on other peoples interpretations.

You should try it sometime. It's called being a "free thinker".

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

Concerning biblical interpretations, I do not consider any of them to be 100% accurate. The KJV is written by those who have a Christian perspective. Therefore when coming to a text in question the interpreter would be inclined to view this with Christian colored glasses. Likewise the JPS, being written from a perspective that denies Jesus as the Messiah would be inclined to interpret a text in question in such a way that it does not validate Christianity.

Therefore, I read more than one interpretation, as well as some commentary, and go to a good lexicon such as Strongs. If I still have question, I dig a little deeper.

That being said, we must keep in mind that the original Hebrew did not have periods, commas, quotation marks, and other punctuation as we do. All that was added, and can indeed change the meaning of a text.

That being said we can take a closer look at the text going back a few verses.

9:21 Gabriel comes "whom I had seen in the vision". Both JPS and KJV use the word vision from the Hebrew (chazon) which always only means (vision). Than comes the phrase "at the beginning" (techillah) meaning before, previously, or the first time.

Daniel in chapter 8 is left confused and disturbed by the vision he had just experienced. Gabriel came and explained some of it but not all. Daniel was still perplexed, but he was not to be left hanging forever.

In chapter 9 Gabriel returns. Daniel recognizes him from before when he came to give understanding of chapter 8. Daniel's mind is on his previous vision "the one whom I had seen in the vision" "at the beginning" or the first time.

9:22 "I have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding."

9:23 "consider the word, and understand the vision." Both JPS and KJV use the word vision here. What vision do you suppose he could be referring to? I suppose we will once again try to make this a reference to a prophecy and not a vision.

9:24 "Seventy weeks are decreed concerning your people and the holy city" Here many translators ran into a problem. The word for decreed is (chathak) meaning "to cut off, or amputate". Seventy weeks are "amputated" concerning your people? What does that mean. The word decreed, or determined was substituted and the sentence made sense.

When one sees this as Gabriel returning to give Daniel understanding concerning chapter 8, this all makes sense. Seventy weeks are cut off or amputated from the 2300 symbolic days, or years in Daniel 8.

We do not have to "puzzle fit" to understand this one.

Given this perspective we can better understand the following verses. 

Concerning Biblical translations and interpretations I consider all to be suspect and driven to promote certain agendas. You have adequately demonstrated this as do the Jewish Websites I have previously suggested you peruse. In this regard one should consider where the source material originated. The source material was from a Jewish perspective without regard to proving that the Jesus was "the one". The KJV OTOH was translated from poor sources in many cases, see Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" for examples. The overall intent of the KJV was to support and substantiate the Christian perspective while the Jewish scriptures were a continuation of the propaganda of the Jews are "the chosen people of the god".

Daniel it would appear was confused for a very long time as the timespan from Chapter 8 to Chapter 9 was in excess of 5 years.

We do not have to puzzle fit at all when you really detach yourself from acceptance of this text as having meaning beyond those that were the intended recepients, the Jews of the 2nd century BCE. That you have the goal of proving it shows the god is real distracts you from understanding what was really going on. As you have demonstrated repeatedly in this thread.

All of the anceint texts of the Jews are based in legends and the mists of the ancients where magic occurred commonly. It seems the god has left for parts unknown and fails to demonstrate his powers in a world that could verify and record such actions. Your attempts to prove Daniel means something more than a 2nd century BCE writer's warning and wake up call to the people of his religious persuasion are filled with your deep desire to show there is something more than what there is. So far you have nothing but conjecture and your asserted interpretations using your Johnny Quest Decoder Ring.

That seems to be a sure fire out for the atheist. Whenever faced with simple logic that point to facts they do not like, it becomes conjecture.

This is logic based upon textual evidence.

1. Chapter 8 Daniel has a vision. Most of it is explained by Gabriel, without question. The last part concerning time is quite obvious if it was written by a 2nd century BC author and refers to literal days. But "Nobody" understood it. This includes Daniel. Daniel does not understand the 2300 days.

2. 5 years later Gabriel returns. Daniel has had plenty of time to ponder and pray. Immediately Daniel recognizes him as the one he had seen before in vision. What vision? Only one comes to mind that makes sense. That would be the vision in chapter 8 that was not understood.

3. This is backed up by Gabriel's "mission statement". He had come to help Daniel understand "the vision". Not rocket science.

4. Without missing a beat Gabriel continues. "70 weeks are (cut off or amputated). This time has been cut off from something. What could that be? Going back to the subject in question we find the time prophecy about the 2300 days that were not understood.

Daniel 8 was written in symbolic language. Beasts for nations, horns for kings or kingdoms, and yes, not unlikely days for years. Daniel 9 was not written in symbolic language. Therefore the time is given in terms specific to mean years.

No Johnny Quest decoder ring needed. Just simple common sense. 

Especially when you can shift from "decreed" to "cut off/amputated" as you need to do so.

No rocket science - just some old fashioned political manure

I did not just make up the definition "cut off/amputated". The Lexicon of Hebrew words (ie: Strongs) defines the word used "chathak" as "A primitive root; properly to cut off".

I have requested that you provide a credible non-Christian Lexicon source for me to use if you don't like the ones I currently refer to. I have no reason to believe that Strongs definition here has been influenced by Christian thinking. Especially since this view is in the minority among Christians.

When examining a text, I do not rely merely on common translations of the bible. It is best to go back to the Hebrew to help get a better perspective.

It is called thinking for myself, rather than relying on other peoples interpretations.

You should try it sometime. It's called being a "free thinker".

I did not say you made it up - I said you use where you want to (whether that's the actual meaning in the text or not).

You also use that same word to mean "decreed".

Personally, I'd rather rely on people who do research in these areas (where my knowledge is lacking) and go where the evidence leads rather than someone who comes in with a conclusion they want to prove and then slap in what they consider evidence (after manipulation) to fit their conclusion.

It's called "honesty" - give it a shot. No wait, you're a Christian - I can guarantee you won't like it.

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

Concerning biblical interpretations, I do not consider any of them to be 100% accurate. The KJV is written by those who have a Christian perspective. Therefore when coming to a text in question the interpreter would be inclined to view this with Christian colored glasses. Likewise the JPS, being written from a perspective that denies Jesus as the Messiah would be inclined to interpret a text in question in such a way that it does not validate Christianity.

Therefore, I read more than one interpretation, as well as some commentary, and go to a good lexicon such as Strongs. If I still have question, I dig a little deeper.

That being said, we must keep in mind that the original Hebrew did not have periods, commas, quotation marks, and other punctuation as we do. All that was added, and can indeed change the meaning of a text.

That being said we can take a closer look at the text going back a few verses.

9:21 Gabriel comes "whom I had seen in the vision". Both JPS and KJV use the word vision from the Hebrew (chazon) which always only means (vision). Than comes the phrase "at the beginning" (techillah) meaning before, previously, or the first time.

Daniel in chapter 8 is left confused and disturbed by the vision he had just experienced. Gabriel came and explained some of it but not all. Daniel was still perplexed, but he was not to be left hanging forever.

In chapter 9 Gabriel returns. Daniel recognizes him from before when he came to give understanding of chapter 8. Daniel's mind is on his previous vision "the one whom I had seen in the vision" "at the beginning" or the first time.

9:22 "I have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding."

9:23 "consider the word, and understand the vision." Both JPS and KJV use the word vision here. What vision do you suppose he could be referring to? I suppose we will once again try to make this a reference to a prophecy and not a vision.

9:24 "Seventy weeks are decreed concerning your people and the holy city" Here many translators ran into a problem. The word for decreed is (chathak) meaning "to cut off, or amputate". Seventy weeks are "amputated" concerning your people? What does that mean. The word decreed, or determined was substituted and the sentence made sense.

When one sees this as Gabriel returning to give Daniel understanding concerning chapter 8, this all makes sense. Seventy weeks are cut off or amputated from the 2300 symbolic days, or years in Daniel 8.

We do not have to "puzzle fit" to understand this one.

Given this perspective we can better understand the following verses. 

Concerning Biblical translations and interpretations I consider all to be suspect and driven to promote certain agendas. You have adequately demonstrated this as do the Jewish Websites I have previously suggested you peruse. In this regard one should consider where the source material originated. The source material was from a Jewish perspective without regard to proving that the Jesus was "the one". The KJV OTOH was translated from poor sources in many cases, see Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" for examples. The overall intent of the KJV was to support and substantiate the Christian perspective while the Jewish scriptures were a continuation of the propaganda of the Jews are "the chosen people of the god".

Daniel it would appear was confused for a very long time as the timespan from Chapter 8 to Chapter 9 was in excess of 5 years.

We do not have to puzzle fit at all when you really detach yourself from acceptance of this text as having meaning beyond those that were the intended recepients, the Jews of the 2nd century BCE. That you have the goal of proving it shows the god is real distracts you from understanding what was really going on. As you have demonstrated repeatedly in this thread.

All of the anceint texts of the Jews are based in legends and the mists of the ancients where magic occurred commonly. It seems the god has left for parts unknown and fails to demonstrate his powers in a world that could verify and record such actions. Your attempts to prove Daniel means something more than a 2nd century BCE writer's warning and wake up call to the people of his religious persuasion are filled with your deep desire to show there is something more than what there is. So far you have nothing but conjecture and your asserted interpretations using your Johnny Quest Decoder Ring.

That seems to be a sure fire out for the atheist. Whenever faced with simple logic that point to facts they do not like, it becomes conjecture.

This is logic based upon textual evidence.

1. Chapter 8 Daniel has a vision. Most of it is explained by Gabriel, without question. The last part concerning time is quite obvious if it was written by a 2nd century BC author and refers to literal days. But "Nobody" understood it. This includes Daniel. Daniel does not understand the 2300 days.

2. 5 years later Gabriel returns. Daniel has had plenty of time to ponder and pray. Immediately Daniel recognizes him as the one he had seen before in vision. What vision? Only one comes to mind that makes sense. That would be the vision in chapter 8 that was not understood.

3. This is backed up by Gabriel's "mission statement". He had come to help Daniel understand "the vision". Not rocket science.

4. Without missing a beat Gabriel continues. "70 weeks are (cut off or amputated). This time has been cut off from something. What could that be? Going back to the subject in question we find the time prophecy about the 2300 days that were not understood.

Daniel 8 was written in symbolic language. Beasts for nations, horns for kings or kingdoms, and yes, not unlikely days for years. Daniel 9 was not written in symbolic language. Therefore the time is given in terms specific to mean years.

No Johnny Quest decoder ring needed. Just simple common sense. 

Especially when you can shift from "decreed" to "cut off/amputated" as you need to do so.

No rocket science - just some old fashioned political manure

I did not just make up the definition "cut off/amputated". The Lexicon of Hebrew words (ie: Strongs) defines the word used "chathak" as "A primitive root; properly to cut off".

I have requested that you provide a credible non-Christian Lexicon source for me to use if you don't like the ones I currently refer to. I have no reason to believe that Strongs definition here has been influenced by Christian thinking. Especially since this view is in the minority among Christians.

When examining a text, I do not rely merely on common translations of the bible. It is best to go back to the Hebrew to help get a better perspective.

It is called thinking for myself, rather than relying on other peoples interpretations.

You should try it sometime. It's called being a "free thinker".

I did not say you made it up - I said you use where you want to (whether that's the actual meaning in the text or not).

You also use that same word to mean "decreed".

Personally, I'd rather rely on people who do research in these areas (where my knowledge is lacking) and go where the evidence leads rather than someone who comes in with a conclusion they want to prove and then slap in what they consider evidence (after manipulation) to fit their conclusion.

It's called "honesty" - give it a shot. No wait, you're a Christian - I can guarantee you won't like it.

Sorry, you are wrong. I did not use the same word to mean "decreed". In 9:25, the word that is interpreted "decree" is "dabar", a completely different word from "chathak" used in 9:24. I do not use words in a manner that is not consistent with the interpreted meaning. This is something others should consider sticking to also. It is very helpful in proper interpretations.

"Intellectual honesty" is a word terribly abused on this site. It usually used against someone simply because they believe in God and have a good argument. If you want intellectual honesty, try digging to the actual meanings of words and phrases instead of just "blogging". It's really not that painful.

I do not use words in a manner that is not consistent with the interpreted meaning.

"Intellectual honesty" is a word terribly abused on this site.

It usually used against someone simply because they believe in God and have a good argument.

If you want intellectual honesty, try digging to the actual meanings of words and phrases instead of just "blogging". It's really not that painful.

 

People put 'faith' in the bible and a supposed god, and a supposed jesus, like they would a rabbit's foot.

People rub their lucky rabbit's foot, because.......well, because they've got nothing to lose by doing it, and make the category attribution error of thinking it's not 'wrong' to hold onto the 'belief'.

gramster wrote:

That seems to be a sure fire out for the atheist. Whenever faced with simple logic that point to facts they do not like, it becomes conjecture.

This is logic based upon textual evidence.

The problem is you read and study the Jewish scriptures with the intent of justifying your belief that Jesus is "the one". Your problems begin where the Hebrew scriptures begin becoming progressively more blatant as the stories of the Hebrews develop.

Please explain where logic comes in with the texts of the ancients that are based in and upon the other ancients that you consider to be discussing false gods. Such as the Egyptian, Sumerian, and Canaanite sources that form a base for the Hebrew god or should I say gods as Asherah was worshiped for quite a long time even into the period where Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE.

Textural evidence? Which source do you think provides evidence?

Exactly which Hebrew translation do you think Strong's is using?

You seem to rely on the KJV which as I mention has many issues, See Bart Ehrman's book. The Jews rejected the use of the Greek text (Septuagint) by the 1st century CE for it's inaccuracies. What do you suppose the KJV used for it's basis?

gramster wrote:

1. Chapter 8 Daniel has a vision. Most of it is explained by Gabriel, without question. The last part concerning time is quite obvious if it was written by a 2nd century BC author and refers to literal days. But "Nobody" understood it. This includes Daniel. Daniel does not understand the 2300 days.

1-Where do you get the idea that nobody understood the text of Daniel in the 2nd century BCE?

Is there something in 1 or 2 Mac that says this?

Is there something in Rabbinic commentary?

Are there texts of secular origin that indicate the Jews during the Maccabees period didn't understand what Daniel was discussing?

The only person that lacked understanding is the character in the text of Daniel, for the point of the reader such that it could be explained and understood by the Jewish audience of the time.

In my discussions with Freeminer I pointed out the number of copies of Enoch were far greater than the number of copies of Daniel found in the Qumran caves. This indicates that when the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) were written and stored in the caves Enoch was very well known and distributed while Daniel was less prevalent at the time. Further, when you read the NT book of Revelation you can see the influence of the book of Enoch within the text.

Do you personally hold the book of Enoch to be scripture from the god? If not why not. If so why?

Is not Enoch also textual evidence using your criteria?

gramster wrote:

2. 5 years later Gabriel returns. Daniel has had plenty of time to ponder and pray. Immediately Daniel recognizes him as the one he had seen before in vision. What vision? Only one comes to mind that makes sense. That would be the vision in chapter 8 that was not understood.

2-Time flies in a book that is not based in the real world, 5 years can be on the next page or seen as flashbacks as in TV and movies of our time. My point in regard to Daniel still being confused after 5 years is it was a ploy of the writer not that he was really confused waiting for the god to send another angel to detail for him what was to be.

gramster wrote:

3. This is backed up by Gabriel's "mission statement". He had come to help Daniel understand "the vision". Not rocket science.

3-Gabriel shows up as the character who will enable the reader to understand what was being discussed, a writer's technique not a god sending forth an angel.

 

gramster wrote:

4. Without missing a beat Gabriel continues. "70 weeks are (cut off or amputated). This time has been cut off from something. What could that be? Going back to the subject in question we find the time prophecy about the 2300 days that were not understood.

Methinks the text indicates 62 weeks for this not 70, see - Daniel 9:26 JPS - "And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off,..."

gramster wrote:

Daniel 8 was written in symbolic language. Beasts for nations, horns for kings or kingdoms, and yes, not unlikely days for years. Daniel 9 was not written in symbolic language. Therefore the time is given in terms specific to mean years.

Daniel 9 is not in symbolic language???

OK then, we go with weeks not years right?

Written in 538 BCE then we have after 6 weeks something occurs. Then 62 weeks later it is cutoff. So we are now in about 537 BCE if it's not symbolic right?

When was the flood in v 26?

 

gramster wrote:

No Johnny Quest decoder ring needed. Just simple common sense. 

My mistake you are using the decoder from Captain Midnight - http://wn.com/1950%27s_Decoder_Ring_TV_Commercial

 

Sorry I have allowed myself to get off track "blogging with the boys". I get into a bit of a dilemma trying not to ignore people's comments, and at the same time avoid getting bogged down blogging. I guess this is not possible.

As for justifying my belief in Jesus, that is just your opinion. I won't waste time on that.

Which "gods" came first, and who borrowed from who is kinda like the chicken and the egg, and another subject, so I will go on.

As for textual evidence and sources, if you have any credible and more accurate sources for translation of Hebrew, please let me know.

KJV is not my favorite translation. I approach them all with caution.

OK, let's say that "Daniel only" did not understand the vision which was super obvious if written about AE IV in the 2nd century BC. The writer than was trying to make his hero character Daniel look like he was "mentally challenged"? I guess that's called being a free thinker?

Enoch more prevalent than Daniel. Probably because Enoch was written closer to the 2nd century BC. Not my criteria anyway.

I'm not concerned whether Gabriel is an angel (messenger), or a man dressed in odd clothing here. Not relevant.

"Methinks" vs 24 cannot indicate 70 weeks. "seventy weeks have been (chathak) cut off". This sets the parameters for this time prophecy. Vs 26 is not the verse I was referring to.

I'll make this clear. Daniel chapter 8 is obviously written in symbolic language. I do not believe anyone disputes this. Daniel chapter 9 is not.

Cowles brings this point out very clearly. In short, the masculine word used for "sevens" (heptad) is used in reference to literal years, and not literal days. In his book "Ezekiel and Daniel with notes pgs 402 and 403."

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

The first decree listed above was made by Cyrus (538 or 537 BC) to be found in Ezra 1. "In the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia". This decree was for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, and did not address specifically the city itself. Therefore I prefer the latter decree. This information is easily verified by a quick search of Cyrus the Great on Wikipedia.

The second decree listed above was made by Darius I (520 or 519 BC) to be found in Ezra 4 and 5. 4:24 the building ceased unto the second year of Darius. And in Ezra 5:15 Darius issues a decree to resume the rebuilding. This also covers primarily the temple.

The third decree listed above was made by Artaxerxes I (~457 BC) to be found in Ezra 7. This decree provides the funding, and also authorized the establishment of some self governance. That is why I prefer this one. This set the stage for the rebuilding of Jerusalem which Nehemiah became a leader in accomplishing. The date for this decree can also be verified by a quick Wikipedia search of Artaxerxes I.

 

Daniel 9:1-2 (JPS)indicate the Jews would be in captivity for 70 years, which is based on Jeremiah 25:11(JPS). Read all of it if you like, it doesn't mention multiple decrees. Also read Jeremiah 31(JPS) which indicates that Jerusalem would be rebuilt. No time frames are mentioned. Daniel 9 was supposedly written in about 538 BCE.

Daniel continued by saying after 7 weeks of 7 meaning 49 years an anointed one would come, which is Cyrus obviously as mentioned by Isaiah as one who was anointed. Next there are 62 weeks of 7 ( or years) taking us to the time of the Maccabees.

You arbitrarily have decided to start your clock after the last supposed decree in Ezra.

Daniel's clock was already ticking away before that.

You are conveniently waiting to start your clock so it will allow you to claim Jesus as one anointed. Please note THE messiah is not used in reference to Daniel 9, see the JPS translation, it is one anointed in 2 places.

Daniel 9:25 (JPS) refers to Cyrus - 1st anointed one.

Daniel 9:26(JPS) refers to another anointed who is "cut off" (killed) and refers to Onais.

I understand your need to hold back the start date so Jesus can be the "ONE" but you have no basis to do so.

1. No, Daniel does not mention "multiple decrees". History however, does give us more than one possible decree to consider as we evaluate this prophecy. All of these decrees are "after" the fall of Babylon. None are before this. You still cannot make a prophecy into a decree. That is what you have to do to make the AE IV theory fit. Cowles prefers the decree of Artaxerxes I in his 20th year, that being 454 BC. All of these decrees rule out this referring the days of the Maccabees, and put this time frame down in the time of Christ.

2. Yes, Jeremiah did "predict" that Jerusalem would be rebuilt. Predict, not Decree.

3. Verse 25 unfortunately the Hebrew text was not written in English. Interpreters often insert words into the text in order for them to convey the meaning to the best of their understanding. This can result sometimes in a less than accurate translation.

Verse 25 as translated word by word from the Hebrew.

"Know - and discern - at - the issuing - of a decree - to restore - and rebuild - Jerusalem - until - Messiah - the prince - weeks - seven - weeks - and threescore - and two - again - will be built - plaza - and moat - of distress - times."

http://www.biblos.com/daniel/9-24.htm

Here we have a "sandwich" text. 1. the decree to restore Jerusalem. 2. Messiah the prince with a time frame. 3. The restoration of Jerusalem again but with no time frame.

It does not matter which of the above decrees I use to "start the clock", this prophecy cannot refer to the days of the Maccabees. The decrees that best fit this prophecy do however, fit the events reported to have happened to Christ. That is what you are unwilling to accept.

4. Yes, the anointed, or Messiah is mentioned in two places. That does not mean that it is referring to two different persons.

It looks like the gloves just do not fit AE IV and Onais.

 

You have decided to completely ignore that Daniel has a 7 weeks of 7 or 49 years and a 62 weeks of 7 or 434 years. You need to do this in order to only use the entire time period so you ignore  2 that are anointed as well such that you can squeeze Jesus in as the anointed.

1- Somehow you have become hung up on decrees to validate your position. You complicate this such that even a PF Flyers Johnny Quest Decoder Ring will be unable to decipher.

I really don't care what Cowles has to say on this as I previously mentioned I do not agree with all of his interpretations as in the end he was a Christian like you but saw the "little horn" and the stories of Daniel to be generally prophecies about the Maccabees and Antiochus.

2-Jeremiah did supposedly make a prophecy and Jeremiah is held to be a prophet of the Jews while Daniel's books are just considered to be "writings".

Once again you are hung up on decrees, time to remove that "rose colored" welding helmet.

3- Yes interpreters do insert words and you pick the KJV to use as a source while I picked the JPS.

Jewish interpretations vs. Christian.

Dan 9:25 KJV  - "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."

and JPS - "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times."

The difference here is the Christian KJV in order to promote Jesus as "THE MESSIAH" uses different words for  "unto one anointed" to be "the Messiah the Prince." Though of course Cyrus was a prince though you want it to be something else.

 

KJV - "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."

JPS- " Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place."

Do you see the differences here? The JPS is discussing the city and the Temple while you want it to be Jesus anointed as "the most holy".

 

4-Once again you have decided to make it THE MESSIAH not a messiah and ignore that there were 2 periods discussed between them.

You may want to clean that Johnny Quest decoder ring.

 

Concerning biblical interpretations, I do not consider any of them to be 100% accurate. The KJV is written by those who have a Christian perspective. Therefore when coming to a text in question the interpreter would be inclined to view this with Christian colored glasses. Likewise the JPS, being written from a perspective that denies Jesus as the Messiah would be inclined to interpret a text in question in such a way that it does not validate Christianity.

Therefore, I read more than one interpretation, as well as some commentary, and go to a good lexicon such as Strongs. If I still have question, I dig a little deeper.

That being said, we must keep in mind that the original Hebrew did not have periods, commas, quotation marks, and other punctuation as we do. All that was added, and can indeed change the meaning of a text.

That being said we can take a closer look at the text going back a few verses.

9:21 Gabriel comes "whom I had seen in the vision". Both JPS and KJV use the word vision from the Hebrew (chazon) which always only means (vision). Than comes the phrase "at the beginning" (techillah) meaning before, previously, or the first time.

Daniel in chapter 8 is left confused and disturbed by the vision he had just experienced. Gabriel came and explained some of it but not all. Daniel was still perplexed, but he was not to be left hanging forever.

In chapter 9 Gabriel returns. Daniel recognizes him from before when he came to give understanding of chapter 8. Daniel's mind is on his previous vision "the one whom I had seen in the vision" "at the beginning" or the first time.

9:22 "I have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding."

9:23 "consider the word, and understand the vision." Both JPS and KJV use the word vision here. What vision do you suppose he could be referring to? I suppose we will once again try to make this a reference to a prophecy and not a vision.

9:24 "Seventy weeks are decreed concerning your people and the holy city" Here many translators ran into a problem. The word for decreed is (chathak) meaning "to cut off, or amputate". Seventy weeks are "amputated" concerning your people? What does that mean. The word decreed, or determined was substituted and the sentence made sense.

When one sees this as Gabriel returning to give Daniel understanding concerning chapter 8, this all makes sense. Seventy weeks are cut off or amputated from the 2300 symbolic days, or years in Daniel 8.

We do not have to "puzzle fit" to understand this one.

Given this perspective we can better understand the following verses.

 

And you still have the issue that I cited in post #912

PJTS uses a translation that says "holy place". You use a translation that simply says "Holy". Your translation leaves open an interpretation for the "holy" to be a person when it may not be the case.

Because your argument needs Jesus to be the Messiah?

To start with I like to thank redneF for bringing up a very important point. It can be very difficult, if even possible to get the full and accurate meaning of "some things" translated from one language to another. That is why it is so important to pay attention to details.

Concerning redneF's comments about intellectual honesty, I believe he totally blew his own credibility here. By claiming that for me to say that we can know "ANYTHING for certain is f...g dishonest", is not only stupid, but intentionally and blatantly lying. Being fluent in 3 languages he would "know for certain" that one can definitely know "SOME" things "for certain".

Example: We know for certain that the text in Daniel is talking about a character, whether real or fictional, named Daniel. There are many things we can "know for certain". There are also things that are much more difficult, or even impossible to "know for certain".

One thing I can "know for certain", redneF is not really interested in being intellectually honest.

Now that my "rant" is over I will get back to the text.

At the end of chapter 8, Daniel is left "hanging". He does not understand the ending of the vision. Everything else has been explained except the 2300 days.

9:21 Gabriel comes to explain and Daniel recognizes him from his appearance in chapter 8.

9:24 "Seventy weeks are "cut off or amputated" from the 2300 symbolic days or literal years.

I posted a link to the word translations in post #911. http://www.biblos.com

With that we are ready to proceed to the heart of the interpretation.

KJV with Strong's
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness and to seal up the vision and prophecy and to anoint the most Holy

gramster wrote:

To start with I like to thank redneF for bringing up a very important point. It can be very difficult, if even possible to get the full and accurate meaning of "some things" translated from one language to another. That is why it is so important to pay attention to details.

Very true, a point I have made several times.

Even the details will not help you in some situations such as:

Spanish: ¿Puedo tomar prestado $ 20 por favor?

English: Can I borrow $20 please?

Southern: Can I hold $20?

If the surviving translation was only the Southern dialect one would puzzle over the question. Surely the man could hold a $20 bill? In the Southern version do you think there is intent in repayment? Probably not though the others indicate it is a loan.

gramster wrote:

Concerning redneF's comments about intellectual honesty, I believe he totally blew his own credibility here. By claiming that for me to say that we can know "ANYTHING for certain is f...g dishonest", is not only stupid, but intentionally and blatantly lying. Being fluent in 3 languages he would "know for certain" that one can definitely know "SOME" things "for certain".

Example: We know for certain that the text in Daniel is talking about a character, whether real or fictional, named Daniel. There are many things we can "know for certain". There are also things that are much more difficult, or even impossible to "know for certain".

We do know that the writer of Daniel has a character named Daniel. We don't know if he was real or not. Other characters in the work were based on real historical people, but nothing corroborates that the writer had any personal  knowledge based on "1st hand" observance. On the contrary, there are many problems with the writer in his narrative and discussions involving the real characters he included in his story. We both have different views on this and you have chosen to accept all of the writer's errors as acceptable and I have chosen to challenge them.

gramster wrote:

One thing I can "know for certain", redneF is not really interested in being intellectually honest.

You do not in fact know this for certain, it is your opinion based on your ego and opinion you formed of him from a post or 2. Rednef was being very "straight up" with you and directly challenging your positions without going through every minute detail that you accept. He has his reasons for why he dismisses the belief in god your hold so dear which was expressed in summary. If asked I'm sure he'd be more than willing to go through the details and reasons why he sees belief in a god from the ancient texts of 1 specific culture are no more different than those of any other from antiquity where knowledge was lacking and answers came from this ignorance that it must be the god who did it because it was well beyond their understanding.

gramster wrote:

Now that my "rant" is over I will get back to the text.

Mine too.

gramster wrote:

At the end of chapter 8, Daniel is left "hanging". He does not understand the ending of the vision. Everything else has been explained except the 2300 days.

9:21 Gabriel comes to explain and Daniel recognizes him from his appearance in chapter 8.

If the character Gabriel came to him in chapter 8 and explained the vision, why then is he still hanging? Poor explanations perhaps? Really the end of chapter 8 indicates,  this from JPS:

"and I was appalled at the vision, but understood it not". Earlier in 8:16, ..."Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision."

It would appear that Gabe did a very poor job.

gramster wrote:

9:24 "Seventy weeks are "cut off or amputated" from the 2300 symbolic days or literal years.

I posted a link to the word translations in post #911. http://www.biblos.com

With that we are ready to proceed to the heart of the interpretation.

You continue to make an error and have just shown it once more. Even in your link, the words "cut off or amputated are not in V24.

strong's daniel 9:24 wrote:

KJV with Strong's
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness and to seal up the vision and prophecy and to anoint the most Holy

 

None of the words in the translation are cutoff or amputated. Do you see what I mean?

Not to mention this is KJV which also differs from the JPS which I previously pointed out to you has the word place after holy.

One last time, the word cutoff is not in v24.

 

 

Daniel 9 verses 25 to 27 need a proper understanding of ancient Hebrew literary structure to be read and understood properly. Here we will need the "Johnny Quest decoder ring". And fortunately we have one on hand.

The overwhelming majority or the Toreh was written in "poetic form". or "Hebrew Parallelism". This is much different than how we do things in English, so we will take a brief look at this.

Daniel 9:25 to 27 forms a "chiastic pattern". I am including the following links so that the reader can 1. know that this is not just a fabrication of Gramps. 2. gain a basic understanding of this principle.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23-parallel.html

Jeff A Benner, a linguist gives a brief introduction to ancient Hebrew poetic parallelism commonly used in the old testament books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_parallels_in_the_Book_of_Daniel

Here it is demonstrated how the Book of Daniel is laid out in a double chaismatic formation for the purpose of emphasis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

Here historicist Shea has a very simple visual graphic (of Daniel 9: 25 to 27 in particular) that demonstrates very clearly the existing chaistic pattern of the text.

This is a most fascinating principle, and well worth the time and effort to get acquainted with.

In short, the subjects being discussed can be represented by simple letters of the alphabet for demonstration purposes.

The subjects in Daniel 9 under discussion are "Jerusalem", and "The anointed".

The chaistic structure is simply ABCDCBA. Below is the basic structure.

 

A Jerusalem Construction

   B Anointed One

      C Jerusalem Construction

         D Anointed One

      C' Jerusalem Destroyed

   B' Anointed One

A' Jerusalem Destroyed

 

The first subject A will correspond with the last subject A'. The second subject B will correspond with the next to last subject B' etc. Knowing this literary structure is crucial to determining just which subject is being discussed in each text.

We will be exploring this more as we move ahead.

 

gramster wrote:

Daniel 9 verses 25 to 27 need a proper understanding of ancient Hebrew literary structure to be read and understood properly. Here we will need the "Johnny Quest decoder ring". And fortunately we have one on hand.

The overwhelming majority or the Toreh was written in "poetic form". or "Hebrew Parallelism". This is much different than how we do things in English, so we will take a brief look at this.

Daniel is not part of the Torah.

Daniel is part of "the writings"

gramster wrote:

Daniel 9:25 to 27 forms a "chiastic pattern". I am including the following links so that the reader can 1. know that this is not just a fabrication of Gramps. 2. gain a basic understanding of this principle.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23-parallel.html

Jeff A Benner, a linguist gives a brief introduction to ancient Hebrew poetic parallelism commonly used in the old testament books.

This link goes nowhere and gives a page error.

gramster wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_parallels_in_the_Book_of_Daniel

Here it is demonstrated how the Book of Daniel is laid out in a double chaismatic formation for the purpose of emphasis.

OK, much like Cowles in places. Various interpretations, various arguments for each though it all is from a Christian bias.

I don't see anything in this link in regard to chapter 9.

gramster wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

Here historicist Shea has a very simple visual graphic (of Daniel 9: 25 to 27 in particular) that demonstrates very clearly the existing chaistic pattern of the text.

This is a most fascinating principle, and well worth the time and effort to get acquainted with.

In short, the subjects being discussed can be represented by simple letters of the alphabet for demonstration purposes.

The subjects in Daniel 9 under discussion are "Jerusalem", and "The anointed".

The chaistic structure is simply ABCDCBA. Below is the basic structure.

 

A Jerusalem Construction

   B Anointed One

      C Jerusalem Construction

         D Anointed One

      C' Jerusalem Destroyed

   B' Anointed One

A' Jerusalem Destroyed

 

The first subject A will correspond with the last subject A'. The second subject B will correspond with the next to last subject B' etc. Knowing this literary structure is crucial to determining just which subject is being discussed in each text.

We will be exploring this more as we move ahead.

 

On the other hand in this same link one should notice the Jewish objections as well.

1- 9:24 - Judaism interprets the verse to have the word place, Christians do not.

2- 9:25 - Judaism sees 2 annointed ones not one while xtians see only one.

This is the 7 weeks = Cyrus, 49 years

and either:

Onais during the Maccabee period starting with 62 weeks from 587 BCE or poorly done dating by the writer of Daniel who exhibited knowledge issues in regard to both Babylonian and Persian history.

Or

Alexander Jannaeus in about 103 BCE. Possible but has issues, see Robert Eisennman, 'The Dead Sea Scrolls and the 1st Christians'

Jannaeus is sometimes considered "the wicked priest" from the Qumran writings, though it's not convincing. He did have his enemies as in the Pharisees.

In my opinion, which I have expressed earlier there were 2 annointed ones, Cyrus and Onais, not one that is Jesus.

I also do not see a cause to wait until the last decrees to begin the time cycle as you do.

The best you can do is end up in 103 BCE, 130 some years off from the story of Jesus being executed by the Romans. The text of Daniel does not give you this extra time to wait.

You have 49 years to Cyrus from 586/7 BCE -

Best case you then have 434 years from 537/538 BCE or approximately 103 BCE

There is also the argument the captivity started with the 1st Babylonian taking of captives circa 600 BCE or so.

The text of Daniel says this in v25 - "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times.

I do not see a delay until the time of Ezra here.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

To start with I like to thank redneF for bringing up a very important point. It can be very difficult, if even possible to get the full and accurate meaning of "some things" translated from one language to another. That is why it is so important to pay attention to details.

Very true, a point I have made several times.

Even the details will not help you in some situations such as:

Spanish: ¿Puedo tomar prestado $ 20 por favor?

English: Can I borrow $20 please?

Southern: Can I hold $20?

If the surviving translation was only the Southern dialect one would puzzle over the question. Surely the man could hold a $20 bill? In the Southern version do you think there is intent in repayment? Probably not though the others indicate it is a loan.

gramster wrote:

Concerning redneF's comments about intellectual honesty, I believe he totally blew his own credibility here. By claiming that for me to say that we can know "ANYTHING for certain is f...g dishonest", is not only stupid, but intentionally and blatantly lying. Being fluent in 3 languages he would "know for certain" that one can definitely know "SOME" things "for certain".

Example: We know for certain that the text in Daniel is talking about a character, whether real or fictional, named Daniel. There are many things we can "know for certain". There are also things that are much more difficult, or even impossible to "know for certain".

We do know that the writer of Daniel has a character named Daniel. We don't know if he was real or not. Other characters in the work were based on real historical people, but nothing corroborates that the writer had any personal  knowledge based on "1st hand" observance. On the contrary, there are many problems with the writer in his narrative and discussions involving the real characters he included in his story. We both have different views on this and you have chosen to accept all of the writer's errors as acceptable and I have chosen to challenge them.

gramster wrote:

One thing I can "know for certain", redneF is not really interested in being intellectually honest.

You do not in fact know this for certain, it is your opinion based on your ego and opinion you formed of him from a post or 2. Rednef was being very "straight up" with you and directly challenging your positions without going through every minute detail that you accept. He has his reasons for why he dismisses the belief in god your hold so dear which was expressed in summary. If asked I'm sure he'd be more than willing to go through the details and reasons why he sees belief in a god from the ancient texts of 1 specific culture are no more different than those of any other from antiquity where knowledge was lacking and answers came from this ignorance that it must be the god who did it because it was well beyond their understanding.

gramster wrote:

Now that my "rant" is over I will get back to the text.

Mine too.

gramster wrote:

At the end of chapter 8, Daniel is left "hanging". He does not understand the ending of the vision. Everything else has been explained except the 2300 days.

9:21 Gabriel comes to explain and Daniel recognizes him from his appearance in chapter 8.

If the character Gabriel came to him in chapter 8 and explained the vision, why then is he still hanging? Poor explanations perhaps? Really the end of chapter 8 indicates,  this from JPS:

"and I was appalled at the vision, but understood it not". Earlier in 8:16, ..."Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision."

It would appear that Gabe did a very poor job.

gramster wrote:

9:24 "Seventy weeks are "cut off or amputated" from the 2300 symbolic days or literal years.

I posted a link to the word translations in post #911. http://www.biblos.com

With that we are ready to proceed to the heart of the interpretation.

You continue to make an error and have just shown it once more. Even in your link, the words "cut off or amputated are not in V24.

strong's daniel 9:24 wrote:

KJV with Strong's
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness and to seal up the vision and prophecy and to anoint the most Holy

 

None of the words in the translation are cutoff or amputated. Do you see what I mean?

Not to mention this is KJV which also differs from the JPS which I previously pointed out to you has the word place after holy.

One last time, the word cutoff is not in v24.

 

 

The complete link that will take you directly to the word in question is http://biblos.com/daniel/9-24.htm

Click on Strong's 2852 and it will take you to the transliteration (chathak). Scroll down to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and it will give the details.

"A primitive root, properly, to cut off" It will also give the information that the word has been interpreted "figuratively" to decree or determine.

I apologize for the "short link". I did give the full link earlier.

redneF did "straight up" challenge my positions. But he also was being dishonest by insinuating nothing can be known for sure, and labeling me a liar because I claim some things can be known for sure. Being fluent in 3 languages he should know better. That is known as blatant intellectual dishonesty. There is no way around it.

OK, I see where you got your interpretation of "cut off" from Strong's KJV versions.

Previously you wrote

gramstar wrote:

9:24 "Seventy weeks are "cut off or amputated" from the 2300 symbolic days or literal years.

If we follow your methods then, 490 years are subtracted from 2300 years or = 1810 years.

So what does this do for us?

 

 

Cut off does not have to mean subtracted. It is simply that this time is "cut out" of the 2300 years for closer examination. That would not affect the time frame for the 2300 year prophecy. Seventy years are cut off, amputated, divided concerning your people. This time frame is being looked at in particular as pertaining to "Daniel's people" or the Jews. After this time period the rest of the 2300 years does not pertain to the Jews in particular.

What is relevant to Daniel has been explained. The Jews were given 490 years to get their act together. I will detail this when I finish my interpretation of Daniel 9.