Use your own vocabulary, Bernard. You're having difficulty with mine. The text gives a coronation with only one person crowned. God speaks and says that the branch'll be ruler. Only person present is Yeshua. That allows you to forget the text and insinuate that someone else is ruler. My appraoch uses the evidence yours your desire.Bernard Muller wrote:to spin,You can use the same word for your theory about Jeshua, because he received crowns on his head, becoming a prince/ruler.Pure eisegesis.
There was no parallel at all. Your continued failures to be relevant are hard to cope with. You are just going to keep responding with nonsense till you die of exhaustion rather than demonstrate some knowledge of the language material you are flailing with.Bernard Muller wrote:I provided the closest passage to your alleged Dan 9:25 parallelisms, with consecutive durations, and the so-called parallelism was different.Once again you misunderstand. This basic issue is stylistic and matters of style tend to manifest in non-narrative discourse. It was not a rule that temporal phrases in parallel clauses are brought together. However, it is a feature on Hebrew literature, so when you find two such phrases you would not put them together as part of the one clause.
It certainly explains what we see. You have such a stupid alternative to the structure in Dan 9:25 that you would normally be ashamed. You claim that the reader is supposed to add the two durations together with no indication in the text or precedent in the literature.Bernard Muller wrote:Syntactic chiasmus is frequent in Hebrew
Even if they would be frequent, they are not the rule.
That eisegesis is as much of a joke as the local shepherd, who was passing where Daniel was writing, having sixty-two sheep and seven sons.Bernard Muller wrote:I already explained about how the author justified of seven and sixty-two (seven is God's number and sixty-two is the alleged age of the alleged Darius the Mede when he allegedly conquered Babylon).That is what we see in 9:25from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks,
and sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
Here again, note T.J.Meek:Bernard Muller wrote:All of that to make sixty-nine look like part of a God's plan. And the following is legitimate, of course a bit strange, because it is part on a prophetic oracle spoken by a demigod: "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks."
See also "a time, times, and an half" in Dan 12:7 & 7:25.
And "MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN" in Daniel 5:25.
Not all new clauses start with a 'waw' in Hebrew.It shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
Now within a verse find me an example where a clause is not linked with a particle such as waw. I'll save you the bother: you won't. The clause about stuff built in 9:25 starts with "and sixty-two weeks", ie the duration given for the state of having been built, before the final stage in the prophecy.
Who claimed they did?... I guess you've learned something at least.Bernard Muller wrote:Not all 'waw' start a new clause.
But you don't let things like grammar get in your way in 9:25 where the syntactical structure is the same. Clause + duration + "and" + duration + clause. There is no reason in the text to read these two complex sentences differently one from the other. The "the" is no escape: would you have tried to add them together had there been no "the"?? You have been gulled by christian literature to add the durations together.Bernard Muller wrote:No, because the Hebrew says "half of the week", so that "half of the week" is part of the week mentioned earlier.Working from the Hebrew without the English confusion, you wouldn't conceive of adding the week and the half week together in 9:27.
Englishizing again. Your claim is yet again is nonsense. The verb is perfect, ie finished and complete. It is not being built but in the state of "built".Bernard Muller wrote:Now about your implied "for" and your weeks of years in "Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time." (NRSV)
First, the "for" implies it took 434 years to rebuilt Jerusalem
Yup. Darius the Mede, King Belshazzar, four Persian kings. There is no sign of an understanding of a historical past. Except for the last week in 9:27, the durations are extremely rough approximations that don't require checking, as there would be no way for listeners to check them.Bernard Muller wrote:(but I think it's about the temple here: streets are not considered open spaces and the Hebrew word is singular; plaza or square is more appropriate). Regardless, that's a long time to rebuild a city or a temple.
Second, that would happen after the seven "weeks", that is for you 49 years after the alleged decree (the temple was rebuilt 23 years later).
Again you are going to say that by "Daniel" having no clue whatsoever about the dating of the history of the temple. And he was inventing all these time intervals.
Who had the ability to read the text? One estimate of literacy rate approximately 200 years after the time was ~2% (data from memory of an article by Ian Young on the subject). The person who read the text to listeners had all the control of the information presented.Bernard Muller wrote:He would be crazy for "Daniel" first to write that the sacrifices would resume after 1267 days (3.5 years), then 1150 days, then 1290 days, then 1335 days. People then reading that right after the events would laugh and treat the book as garbage, if the time of cessation of sacrifices was known then (which I think was 1150 days), even if it was 1335 days. "Daniel" could not have been so stupid.No! First 110 days were added to the shortest duration (8:14, 1150 days) to make 3.5 years or 1260 days, which is stated three times in the visions. Then 30 days were added in 12:11 and finally another 45 days were "discovered", added in the book at 12:12.
The Tamid was restored at the end of 164 BCE. The 1290 days expressly refers to it. The 1335 has no specific extra context.Bernard Muller wrote:The solution of the problem: the "half the week" does not mean 3.5 years.
1290 days is when the apostate Jews and soldiers in the nearby fortress reclaimed the temple.
1335 days is about when these apostate Jews and soldiers were chased back into the fortress and Jewish sacrifices resumed again in the temple.
And I got support from Josephus & 1 Maccabees:
Josephus' Ant., XII, IX, 3a. "At that time [163 B.C.E.] it was that the garrison in the citadel of Jerusalem, with the Jewish renegades, did a great deal of harm to the Jews: for the soldiers that were in that garrison rushed out upon the sudden, and destroyed such as were going to the temple in order to offer their sacrifices, for this citadel adjoined to and overlooked the temple. When these misfortunes had often happened to them, ..."
1Maccabees: 1:33-36 "Then they built up the City of David with a high, massive wall and strong towers, and it became their citadel. There they installed a sinful race, perverse men, who fortified themselves inside it, storing up weapons and provisions, and depositing there the plunder they had collected from Jerusalem. And they became a great threat. The citadel became an ambush against the sanctuary, and a wicked adversary to Israel at all times."