posted
There is no fudge factor needed in the prophecy of Dan. 9:24-27, Lisa, unless you are thinking of the praeteristic interpretation, which tries to see fulfillment in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Maccabees actually did try to use this prophecy in this way to legitimize their seizing power, and they did have to use a fudge factor of about seven years.
But taking a year for a prophetic day, as is common in Bible prophecy, 457 B.C. (when Ezra arrived in Judea to publish throughout the land the king's commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem--the commandment that actually did result in this being done) to 27 A.D. (when Jesus was baptized in the River Jordan and annointed by the Holy Spirit according to the gospel account) is exactly 483 days/years or 69 sevens, as specified in the prophecy (remembering that there was no year zero, 1 B.C. was followed by 1 A.D.). That date, 27 A.D., is when Jesus turned 30 (as Matthew mentions)--because the scholars who originally devised the Christian calendar were mistaken about the date of Christ's birth, which has since been shown to be about 4 B.C., according to most scholars. So Jesus was about three years old in 1 A.D., 30 in 27 A.D. No fudge factor is required. Everything comes out exactly on the predicted date. Ezra arrived in Judea in October, the fall of the year, and Jesus was crucified in the Spring of the year, right in the "midst" of the last "week," or three and one-half years from the start of His ministry. When you have the right interpretation of Bible prophecy, every detail works out to be exactly correct. If any particular does not fit, then you do not have the right interpretation. God does not make mistakes.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Ron? If you'd like to focus on another prophecy, I think that'd be better, because I think that the Jewish interpretation is compelling, especially with the context of Isaiah.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right interpretation? Doesn't the very word come down to how you see it? Not as an established fact?
That is one of the reasons I never became a Christian. Many Christian arguments discuss "interpretation" of scriptures. Jews discuss scripture from direct translation.
Merriam Webster Dictionary:
1 : the act or the result of interpreting : explanation 2 : a particular ADAPTATION or version of a work, method, or style 3 : a teaching technique that COMBINES factual with stimulating explanatory information
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ron? If you'd like to focus on another prophecy, I think that'd be better, because I think that the Jewish interpretation is compelling, especially with the context of Isaiah.
Superb. Blayne, I hope you decide not to delete this thread, because there's some good stuff in it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
That is another troublesome reference. The translation from Hebrew into English is very sketchy.
In case anyone was curious about what Armoth meant, here's a different translation.
quote:5. For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."
But basically, anytime anything about hamashiach/ the messiah is mentioned, it's with male pronouns, like this.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
That is another troublesome reference. The translation from Hebrew into English is very sketchy.
I wouldn't exactly say "sketchy". "Completely wrong" is probably more accurate. Though I'll be even handed and say that I don't think the Chabad version is very good, either.
Since when does having "El" as part of one's name imply that one is a deity? Elhanan: gracious God. The single most common form for names in the ancient near east (not even just in Hebrew, but in Aramaic and Akkadian and Hurrian and just about every other language) is stem-DN or DN-stem, where DN is a divine name and stem is a noun or verb or adjective. Gabriel means exactly the same thing as El Gibor, which the LDS translation gave as "mighty God".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are plenty of prophecies that happen to imply he would be male, but that's different from a prophecy that he would be male.
That one's arguably close to that, though it seems to be a prophecy that he will be male and he will bear some sort of authority. That prophecy would only be fulfilled when both conditions are met, not when just being male is met.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: There are plenty of prophecies that happen to imply he would be male, but that's different from a prophecy that he would be male.
That one's arguably close to that, though it seems to be a prophecy that he will be male and he will bear some sort of authority. That prophecy would only be fulfilled when both conditions are met, not when just being male is met.
You asked for a prophecy specifying that the messiah would be male, the fact there are additional qualifications does not take away from that particular requirement.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I didn't. I asked for a prophecy that he would be a man. The reason I phrased it that way is you said being a man fulfills one of the messianic prophecies. Not, is mentioned by a prophecy, but fulfills that prophecy.
quote:Look I (yes BlackBlade) fulfill one of the messianic prophecies by virtue of the fact that I'm a man.
quote:There was a prophecy that he would be a man?
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No, I didn't. I asked for a prophecy that he would be a man. The reason I phrased it that way is you said being a man fulfills one of the messianic prophecies. Not, is mentioned by a prophecy, but fulfills that prophecy.
quote:Look I (yes BlackBlade) fulfill one of the messianic prophecies by virtue of the fact that I'm a man.
quote:There was a prophecy that he would be a man?
I hate semantics, but people routinely refer to messianic prophecies in terms of each defining characteristic. Matthew the gospel writer says many times, "that the scriptures/prophecy may be fulfilled which said that..." and then he proceeded to quote the middle of a verse.
I admit there is not a particular scripture that says, "The messiah will be a man." But there are many scriptures that clearly indicate that he will be a man as well as other equally important characteristics. The reason I even brought any of this up was two people were making equally extreme claims that were equally useless IMHO. Arguing that Jesus does not fill a single one of those prophecies to me is just as futile as arguing that he fulfilled all of them. To me the fact the Jews amongst all their recorded criticisms in the NT did not question Jesus' genealogy seems to indicate that at least that seemed to square with most of them.
I'm not really interested in discussing whether Jesus fulfills all the prophecies in the OT, I've found there are so many differences in how Jews and Christians read the OT that it is nearly impossible to discuss the scriptures without first spending a long time discussing context.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, no one in 150 years has been able to answer the points I made about Daniel 9:24-27 pointing to the exact year when Jesus would be annointed as Messiah. Every attempt to explain away this prophecy has been clearly bogus. And this proof is based on the mathematics of time and dates fixed in history. No quibbling about the connotations of the original language is relevant. You can argue whether the principle of a prophetic day equalling a literal year is valid, but there are precedents for this elsewhere in Scripture. (See for example Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6.) Even the Qumram community apparently saw the "70 sevens" of Daniel 9:24 as 490 years, because they referred to it as "ten jubilees." Since a Jubilee came every 49 years, this was saying 490 years.
I can see why you would rather go on to consider some other Messianic prophecy, where you can make arguments based on the connotations of the original language. But even if you dispute the literal meaning of "a virgin shall conceive" (Isaiah 7:14) and say it just means a young woman or "maiden," that still does not preclude the Messianic implications. Neither does pointing out any local application preclude a second, future application. By itself, if that was all we had, it would not be "proof." But put it together with all the other specifications Jesus Christ fulfilled, such as that he would come out of "Bethlehem Ephratah," and be the one who is "to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting" (Micah 5:2), and the weight of evidence builds.
The first Messianic prophecy in the Bible is Genesis 3:15, which promised a Seed who would bruise/crush/strike the serpent's head, even though the Seed would suffer the same against His heel.
There is another very telling Messianic text that we have discussed before, to which I thought you gave a very unsatisfactory answer, Lisa. That was Psalms 110:1, where we read: "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'" Jesus quoted this in Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42, and then asked how is it that the one David called Lord was also considered to be David's son? Lisa, you said that the first Lord was Abraham. I maintain that that makes no sense. No where in the Bible is Abraham given the title "Lord." The question remains unanswered, who was David calling Lord, who also had a Lord He acknowledged? The Son of David would be Lord. In other texts it is said He will be called "God."
The case for Jesus Christ being your Jewish Messiah has a great weight of evidence. You can probably come up with some rationalization that at least makes a stab at explaining away each text; the human mind can be very imaginative. God has not removed all possibilities for doubt. If He had done that, then faith would not be possible, and faith is what He desires. Just knowing the truth is not enough. As the Apostle James observed, "You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble!" (James 2:19) But what does the great weight of evidence indicate? This is all that faith requires. This is what makes faith a responsible faith.
[ March 16, 2009, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, no one in 150 years has been able to answer the points I made about Daniel 9:24-27 pointing to the exact year when Jesus would be annointed as Messiah.
<snort> Did you even read Armoth's link? Only your poor translation of Daniel 9 allows you to come close to such a conclusion.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Every attempt to explain away this prophecy has been clearly bogus.
"Clearly". Oh, you mean "Because Ron says so."
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And this proof is based on the mathematics of time and dates fixed in history. No quibbling about the connotations of the original language is relevant. You can argue whether the principle of a prophetic day equalling a literal year is valid, but there are precedents for this elsewhere in Scripture. (See for example Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6.) Even the Qumram community apparently saw the "70 sevens" of Daniel 9:24 as 490 years, because they referred to it as "ten jubilees." Since a Jubilee came every 49 years, this was saying 490 years.
No one disputes that the chapter is talking about weeks of years. That's a red herring you keep throwing out.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The first Messianic prophecy in the Bible is Genesis 3:15, which promised a Seed who would bruise/crush/strike the serpent's head, even though the Seed would suffer the same against His heel.
Wrong. The word "zera" means descendents. It means that serpents bite humans and humans kill serpents. That's all.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There is another very telling Messianic text that we have discussed before, to which I thought you gave a very unsatisfactory answer, Lisa. That was Psalms 110:1, where we read: "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'"
Yes, but again, that's a very dishonest translation. It says "The Lord said to my lord". Where the first "Lord" is the Tetragrammaton; the four letter Name of God. And the second one is a term of respect given to human beings. Adoni. M'lord. In modern Hebrew, it's the equivalent of "sir". Back in biblical times, it had more of a nobility thing going on.
But the first place in the Bible that we see anyone being called "adoni" was Abraham, who was addressed that way by the Children of Heth. And that's who this verse is referring to. Capitalizing "your" is blasphemous.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Jesus quoted this in Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42, and then asked how is it that the one David called Lord was also considered to be David's son? Lisa, you said that the first Lord was Abraham. I maintain that that makes no sense. No where in the Bible is Abraham given the title "Lord."
Wrong. The exact same term is used for him. "Adoni shema'eini". "My lord, hear me." That was Ephron the Hittite. Also, it's the second "lord" that's referring to Abraham. The first one is absolutely God. You know, Ron, it's a real shame you can't read Psalms in the original. You might realize how lame your arguments are.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The question remains unanswered, who was David calling Lord, who also had a Lord He acknowledged? The Son of David would be Lord. In other texts it is said He will be called "God."
Nope. In no texts is it ever said that the Messiah will be a deity. That's blasphemy.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The case for Jesus Christ being your Jewish Messiah has a no evidence.
posted
I especially like the start: "You'll never be able to answer this! No one in One Hundred and Fifty Years has been able to ans--" "Armoth already got that" "No one in One Hundred and Forty Nine Years has been able to..."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
I do not find many of the Jesus arguments to be very compelling. You see a lot of weight, i see a lot of people who read a christological interpretation into Bible when it is not quite there. It's even more bizarre arguing scripture with people who read it in translation as opposed to those who have a command of the language.
To conclude - your thing on faith is particularly striking. The word for "faith" in Hebrew is "emunah" - which does not mean faith in the English sense.
Jews do not believe in taking a leap of faith. They believe that the truth of Judaism is demonstrated by rational argument - no leap of faith required. Leaps of faith are meaningless.
The word "emunah" means fealty, loyalty, or faithfulness. We are commanded to be "ma'amin" in God - to be faithful to the knowledge of His existence and to have that reflect in our behavior.
Otherwise, if you did not "believe" in God, why would you care if he commanded you to believe in him?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said that every attempt (in 150 years) to explain away this prophecy has been bogus. Certainly people have tried, but their arguments have all been refuted by responsible scholarship.
If you acknowledge that the "70 sevens" of Daniel 9:24 is talking about 70 sevens of years, and it began in 457 B.C. (the date favored by most scholars), then what do you see as happening in 27 A.D.?
That link you and Armoth gave leads to a page that says "Domain name has been changed," and has a list of topics that have no apparent relevance.
Just because someone can venture some way of explaining away a Scriptural evidence, doesn't mean he has really refuted it. I need to see the argument you are trying to make to respond to it. I have been conversant with this debate for some 45 years. I doubt anyone has come up with anything new recently.
I maintain, it is really stretching things to claim that David would be referring to Abraham in Psalms 110:1. Cling to that if you wish. But the splinter you are holding onto to keep you afloat is becoming seriously water-logged. I have to say, this seems to be representative of the quality of all your arguments.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
"Now we will turn our attention to the chapter of Daniel 9, and will deal with it in the same way, examining its context, original language, and even punctuation to see how it has been tampered with in Christian translations of the Tanach. This analysis may be a bit technical, but is nevertheless important to understand.
Specifically, we are dealing with verses 25 & 26. The passages deal with a prophecy of Daniel that speaks about the Second Temple Era. Though he will speak of a time frame, using the word weeks, everyone agrees that he meant weeks of years, 7 years, instead of a week of 7 days. In the King James Version it reads:
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 after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself….
The Christian position is that this passage talks about the Messiah (moshiach) coming during the second Temple period, and dying for our sake.
For background, let us begin by understanding some Jewish concepts.
The word "moshiach", literally means anointed and is used in Tanach to apply to kings, priests, prophets, even the altar in the Temple . So, when the Tanach refers to someone as a "moshiach," anointed one, we need to be aware of whom it could be speaking.
The term “Messiah” is a relatively "modern" phrasing for the future anointed King, descended from David, who will usher in the Kingdom of G-d. In Tanach, he is usually referred to as David or the son of David, or a branch of Jesse, David’s father. Nowhere in all of the Tanach does the phrase “HaMoshiach”, "The Messiah" appear, including here. Daniel just uses "moshiach" which means "an anointed one." So the King James Version is inaccurate in using the words “The Messiah.” It even goes so far as to capitalize the word Messiah, making it seem that it is referring to the awaited deliverer, yet know that there is no capitalization in Hebrew - all letters appear in the same case.
The key to understanding the proper reading of this verse is to recognize that there are two time frames mentioned: 7 weeks, and then a subsequent 62 weeks, equaling 69 weeks. Two different anointed ones appear, one in each of those periods. According to the Christian reading, the two periods are combined into one, and the two anointed ones are one and the same, namely Jesus.
Let's look at a Jewish translation that will show how even the misuse of punctuation can be deceiving.
25. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem until the coming of an anointed prince shall be seven weeks;* and sixty two weeks it shall be built again, with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26. And after sixty two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and nothing will be left to him....
*Hebrew grammer places an "asnachta" between these verses, which has a "semi-colon" as its best counter-part in English. It is meant to divide two distinct parts of a sentence. The KJV & NIV will at least acknowledge this with a "comma."
By our reading, we have an anointed prince coming after 7 weeks which is 49 years. This timeframe corresponds in history to King Cyrus giving permission to the Jews to return to their land. What does the Tanach say about Cyrus?
---------------------------
Tanach - Isaiah Chapter 45
1. Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him doors and gates; and the gates shall not be closed; -------------------
Tanach - Ezra Chapter 1
1. And in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he issued a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying: 2. Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he has charged me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. -------------------
Cyrus is this anointed prince or king, whose actions occurred around 49 years into the 70 years exile of the Jews. Once he did his job, the 2nd Commonwealth essentially began and the separate 62 week period of "troublesome times" began, until we see the second anointed one.
The Christian translators eliminated the sentence break or (semi-colon) found in Daniel to combine our two parts into one misleading phrase, trying to suggest a 69 week period with a single anointed one, mentioned twice. First of all, no language in the world, including Hebrew, would ever express 69 as 7 & 62. They would say 60 & 9 or 9 & 60, but you will never see seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks for 69 weeks, especially with an "asnachta" (semi-colon) placed between the verses. Both the King James & NIV place at least a comma between the verses to parallel this.
To reinforce our position that the 62 week period is distinct from the first 7 weeks, Daniel speaks again about the 62 weeks in verse 26, where he says:
26. And after sixty two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off…
Christian translations say:
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah (meaning the same one mentioned before) be cut off, but not for himself….
They want you to feel that this corresponds to Jesus as a sacrifice. However, we say it says.
26. And after sixty two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and nothing will be left to him....
Here we are introduced to another “anointed one,” as per the Hebrew, not “The Messiah.” The Hebrew says this anointed one will "be cut off, and nothing will be left to him...."
If we look at the Hebrew text we see 2 key points.
Y'KARAIS MOSHIACH V'AYN LO.
1) The verb for "cutoff", KARAIS refers to the fate of evil people.
--------
Exodus 9:15: For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may strike you and your people with pestilence; and you shall be cut off from the earth. ------
Exodus 12:15. Seven days shall you eat unleavened bread; the first day you shall put away leaven out of your houses; for whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel . --------
Number 9:13 , 15:30, 15:31 , 19:13 , 19:20 . To name a few.
2) The words V'AYN LO means "and he will have nothing" or "and nothing will remain to him." If you wanted to say "but not for himself, you would need to say V'AYN L'ATZMO."
Our translation then deals with a cutoff (evil) anointed person, who will end up with nothing. This corresponds in history to King Herod Agrippa, the last king of Israel before the Roman destruction. See:
In conclusion, we once again debunk Christian proof-texts through carefully examining proper context and translation."
Ron: I never liked Lisa's abrasive methods, but I'm beginning to understand why she uses them. You have absolutely no leg to stand on when you talk about your proofs so confidently. I am more than willing to give you the opportunity to claim a leg to stand on, and to earn it through proofs and argument. You have not yet gotten there.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I said that every attempt (in 150 years) to explain away this prophecy has been bogus. Certainly people have tried, but their arguments have all been refuted by responsible scholarship.
<snicker> Right. Never mind the fact that your translations bite. It's "responsible scholarship" if it agrees with your religious beliefs.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you acknowledge that the "70 sevens" of Daniel 9:24 is talking about 70 sevens of years, and it began in 457 B.C. (the date favored by most scholars), then what do you see as happening in 27 A.D.?
I'm sorry, did I accidentally say that I agree with "most scholars" about this?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: That link you and Armoth gave leads to a page that says "Domain name has been changed," and has a list of topics that have no apparent relevance.
That's not true. Did you type the URL in or did you click on the link? I suspect you typed it, and that you did so inaccurately (which would make sense, as it would match your reading of the Bible). I checked the links again, and you're wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I maintain, it is really stretching things to claim that David would be referring to Abraham in Psalms 110:1. Cling to that if you wish. But the splinter you are holding onto to keep you afloat is becoming seriously water-logged. I have to say, this seems to be representative of the quality of all your arguments.
First of all, the reason David mentions Malchizedek in that chapter is because of the interaction between Abraham and Malchizedek. Second of all, whether it's Abraham or not, it certainly is not God, because Adoni is never used for God. Ever. Not even one time in the entire Bible.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Daniel just uses "moshiach" which means "an anointed one." So the King James Version is inaccurate in using the words “The Messiah.
This is merely an assertion that one meaning of "annointed" is to be preferred over another. Jewish scholars, determined to avoid any reference to a Messiah at the time Jesus Christ appeared, are the ones who have tampered with the translation of this text. The Christian view is certainly the one most likely, since things are said about this "annointed one" that imply a person, not a thing (as if it were talking about the sanctuary). Verse 25 refers to Him as "Messiah the Prince." Verse 26 says "Messiah will be cut off, but not for Himself." All Jewish scholars can do is pile up assertion upon assertion, without convincing proof, or any proof, other than quoting from themselves.
The idea that there are two annointed ones is ludicrous. There was no punctuation at all in the original language when Daniel was written, in the sixth century B.C. Here again we see the desperation of Jewish scholars impelling them to tamper with the text and make it read the way they want it to.
The fact remains that the time prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 has a definite starting point. The commandment "to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem" (v. 25) was published throughout the Land of Judah by Ezra when he arrived from Persia, in a trip that would have brought him to Judah in the fall of 457 B.C. That is when the prophecy begins. This is the only reasonable interpretation, that requires no "fancy footwork."
It might be objected (and has been by some) that there were three commands issued to rebuild Jerusalem. But the third one, issued by Artaxerxes, and carried by Ezra to Judah, who was given authority, money, and men-at-arms to enforce his authority as governor, is the only one that did result in the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its wall. This is also specified by the prophecy: "the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."
The nonsense about this prophecy having to do with the fall of Babylon can be completely disregarded. Babylon fell in Daniel chapter five. Chapter nine was written well after Medo-Persia had replaced Babylon as ruler of the Middle-Eastern world. There would be no point in having a prophecy about the Medo-Persians conquering Babylon, when it was already past history.
What is interesting is that the prophecy of Isaiah 45:1 calls Cyrus by name years before his birth, and promises that the "two leaved gates" woud be open, and "shall not be shut." This is important, because the armies of the Medes and Persians, led by Darius and Cyrus, respectively, could not have entered Babylon through the dry river bed after diverting the water, if the gate that spanned the river to prevent just such an attack had been shut and locked, as it was supposed to be.
It was not until years later, during the time of King Artaxerxes, that the document containing the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem and its wall was delivered by Ezra to Judah and resulted in the accomplishment of what was decreed.
[ March 17, 2009, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Do you have a source that the Jews tampered with their own texts?
IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, perhaps the biggest blow to your interpretation is the verse in Isaiah that calls Cyrus God's annointed - mashiach - same word as messiah. Cyrus is God's messiah according to the same Bible that you and I read. What do you do with that?
It fits mighty well.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Daniel just uses "moshiach" which means "an anointed one." So the King James Version is inaccurate in using the words “The Messiah.
This is merely an assertion that one meaning of "annointed" is to be preferred over another.
So is yours, Ron, except that the definite article is certainly omitted, so "the Messiah" is clearly wrong. It doesn't say "ha-mashiach", it says "mashiach". A messiah/anointed one.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Jewish scholars, determined to avoid any reference to a Messiah at the time Jesus Christ appeared, are the ones who have tampered with the translation of this text.
You're so silly. We don't really care all that much about translations, because we use the text in its original. We only use translations as a convenience. We never make the mistake of thinking that the translation is the actual text.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Christian view is certainly the one most likely,
<snort>
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: since things are said about this "annointed one" that imply a person, not a thing (as if it were talking about the sanctuary).
Who says it's talking about the sanctuary? The anointed one in verse 25 is Cyrus, and the anointed one in verse 26 is Agrippas. Neither of whom were things, so far as I'm aware.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Verse 25 refers to Him as "Messiah the Prince." Verse 26 says "Messiah will be cut off, but not for Himself."
No, verse 25 says "an anointed prince". There's absolutely no definite article in that phrase. The "the" is pure invention on the part of Christian translators. And verse 26 says an anointed one will be cut off, using the term that's only ever used in the Bible for excision. Something which God says will happen to those who violate the Torah in really bad ways. "And the soul that does thus-and-such shall be cut off from his people." It's always a punishment for someone who has sinned grievously. And it does *not* say "but not for himself." "Ayn lo" means "he does not have". So "yekaret mashiach v'ayn lo" means that a "mashiach v'ayn lo" will be excised. Agrippas was an anointed king who had no legitimacy on the throne. Seems to me that he fits. "Ayn lo" appears several places througout the Bible, and it *never* means "not for himself".
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The idea that there are two annointed ones is ludicrous. There was no punctuation at all in the original language when Daniel was written, in the sixth century B.C. Here again we see the desperation of Jewish scholars impelling them to tamper with the text and make it read the way they want it to.
Wrong. Why do you think there was no punctuation? Who do you think knows better what the text says in all its details? The people who actually preserved the text and from whom you got it, or a bunch of recent pagans who adapted it to suit their polytheistic beliefs?
Rhetorical question, of course. You clearly go with the pagans.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The fact remains that the time prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 has a definite starting point. The commandment "to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem" (v. 25) was published throughout the Land of Judah by Ezra when he arrived from Persia, in a trip that would have brought him to Judah in the fall of 457 B.C. That is when the prophecy begins. This is the only reasonable interpretation, that requires no "fancy footwork."
Actually, since the First Temple was destroyed in 421 BCE, and Cyrus' decree was about 49 years later, you're off by quite a number of years.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a question about Daniel. I've read that Daniel was not a prophet, but many branches of Christianity believe he was one. Why the difference?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christians think (I think) that anyone who has a vision of the future is a prophet. We define the term differently. There's a range of perception of God that we call prophecy. Daniel's level, while high, wasn't in this range.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Christians think (I think) that anyone who has a vision of the future is a prophet. We define the term differently. There's a range of perception of God that we call prophecy. Daniel's level, while high, wasn't in this range.
Is Saul amongst the prophets?
But in all honesty wouldn't anybody who makes a prophecy that is accepted as the word of God by God's people be a "prophet" lowercase while a person who reveals God's will concerning His people would be a "Prophet?"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But in all honesty wouldn't anybody who makes a prophecy that is accepted as the word of God by God's people be a "prophet" lowercase while a person who reveals God's will concerning His people would be a "Prophet?"
There's no capitalization in Hebrew.
(Seriously, arguing purely semantic distinctions across at least two different languages and cultures seems even more pointless than the rest of this thread.)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But in all honesty wouldn't anybody who makes a prophecy that is accepted as the word of God by God's people be a "prophet" lowercase while a person who reveals God's will concerning His people would be a "Prophet?"
There's no capitalization in Hebrew.
(Seriously, arguing purely semantic distinctions across at least two different languages and cultures seems even more pointless than the rest of this thread.)
I'm not sure that it is, but I don't feel a strong need to do so.
So in Hebrew is there any sort of distinction between one who feels the spirit of prophecy like Saul and one called to fill the prophetic station like Moses?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll refer you to Judaism 101, which sums up the basics well enough. Beyond that... if you want to argue about whether "prophet" is a perfect translation of navi or whatever, that's your concern.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't think this thread was pointless. I learned more Daniel now than I ever did in my Yeshiva education. ;-)
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Christians think (I think) that anyone who has a vision of the future is a prophet. We define the term differently. There's a range of perception of God that we call prophecy. Daniel's level, while high, wasn't in this range.
Is Saul amongst the prophets?
But in all honesty wouldn't anybody who makes a prophecy that is accepted as the word of God by God's people be a "prophet" lowercase while a person who reveals God's will concerning His people would be a "Prophet?"
Like Shmuel said, there's a language problem here. I'd phrase what you said as "wouldn't anybody who makes a prediction". Prophecy isn't about fortelling the future. That's one small part of what prophets can do, and it's generally used as a method of proving a prophet to actually be capable of prophecy. But most of the time, prophecy is about telling us what the proper priorities in God's law are. Something that can only be done in real time, and could never have been written down generations earlier without risking major misunderstandings.
Daniel may or may not have been a prophet. But the visions he had were not gotten at that level.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
