Another Daniel Issue-- please help!

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Jay,

Don't be silly, Bernard. Your baseless accusation is only a poor reflection on your capabilities. I suggest you retract it and save a little face. Oh, and use more scholarly translations.

Propaganda against me, insulting and demeaning people who do not agree with you. I guess that's OK by Peter.
And your more scholarly translations are based on being deemed non-confessional. That seems to me your main criteria for historicity.

Bernard Muller wrote:
That's why you accept some other translations which require additional words in order to prevent "tendentious christian understanding of the verse".

This is ridiculous. Some translations are obviously more accurate than others.

I would question the accuracy when words are added, such as "Then for", as in the RSV translation: "... there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.." which you probably like.
This is more like an interpretation. This is dishonest.
Without the added "Then for", we have: "... there shall be seven weeks sixty-two weeks. it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.."

You've seen this christian interference with regard to the tendentiousness of "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 or of nails in Ps 22:16, so cut the hypocrisy.

These are obvious christian interferences. But you are imagining things for Da 9:25-26.

If you have no desire to understand a text, why do you bother to meddle with the material? If you desire to understand then you should attempt to remove the impediments to understanding. When you use confessional translations you will get nowhere useful. Obviously you are not trying to come to grips with the significance of the text, so I guess you've ended the conversation.

Propaganda against me again. Prove me wrong with evidence and arguments, not with insulting comments.
I guess understanding the text has to be done according to you, and in a way which is, above all, anti-confessional.
In my webpage on 'Daniel" I took great pain into explaining that Cyrus' decree is the starting date for the alleged prophecy about the seventy "seven", that what shows as "Messiah, the Prince" is misleading and should be translated as "anointed chief", that the scheme involving 69 "weeks" leads exactly to the year when Jason, the legitimate high priest, (not Jesus Christ) returns to Jerusalem. That's not confessional.

Cordially, Bernard

[beowulf]

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi=true
25. And you shall know and understand that from the emergence of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed king [shall be] seven weeks, and [in] sixty-two weeks it will return and be built street and moat, but in troubled times

Rashi's comments: And you shall know and understand from the emergence of the word: From the emergence of this word, which emerged at the beginning of your supplications to tell you, you shall know to understand [how] to restore and build Jerusalem.
until the anointed king: Time will be given from the day of the destruction until the coming of Cyrus, king of Persia, about whom the Holy One, blessed be He, said that he would return and build His city, and He called him His anointed and His king, as it says (Isa. 45:1): “So said the Lord to His anointed one, to Cyrus etc.” (verse 13): “He shall build My city and free My exiles, etc.”
seven weeks: Seven complete shemittah cycles they will be in exile before Cyrus comes, and there were yet three more years, but since they did not constitute a complete shemittah cycle, they were not counted. In the one year of Darius, in which Daniel was standing when this vision was said to him, seventy years from the conquest of Jehoiakim terminated. Deduct eighteen years from them, in which the conquest of Jehoiakim preceded the destruction of Jerusalem, leaving fifty-two years. This is what our Rabbis learned (Yoma 54a): “For fifty-two years no one passed through Judea.” They are the fifty-two years from the day of the destruction until they returned in the days of Cyrus. Hence, we have seven shemittah cycles and three years.
and in sixty-two weeks it will return and be built: i.e., the city with its streets.

and moat: Heb. וְחָרוּץ. They are the moats that they make around the wall to strengthen the city, which are called fosse in French, ditch or moat.

but in troubled times: But in those times they will be troubled and distressed, for in the subjugation of the kings of Persia and the heathens, they will burden them with harsh bondage. Now although there are sixty-two weeks and four years more that remain from the eighth week, whose beginning, viz. the three years, was included in the fifty-two years of the duration of the exile, those four years were not counted here because here he counted only weeks, and you find that from the beginning he started to count seventy weeks, and at the end, when he delineated their times and their judgments, he counted only sixty-nine, proving that one week was divided, part of it here and part of it there; and he mentioned only whole weeks.
but in troubled times: They will be troubled in those times.
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi=true

[spin]

Hi Jay,

Don't be silly, Bernard. Your baseless accusation is only a poor reflection on your capabilities. I suggest you retract it and save a little face. Oh, and use more scholarly translations.

Propaganda against me, insulting and demeaning people who do not agree with you. I guess that's OK by Peter.

Gosh, why do people who use ad hominems forget that they do? Aren't you the person trying to call me "anti-christian" because I point out that there are gross problems with christian confessional translations?

And your more scholarly translations are based on being deemed non-confessional. That seems to me your main criteria for historicity.

The scholarly translations I have referred you to are those which deal with the text and not their desires about the text. You should start with the best understanding of the text possible. I point you to the scholarly translations, one christian and the other Jewish, and they agree on the issue. I cannot understand why you go with your shitty translations. It is absurd.

Bernard Muller wrote:
That's why you accept some other translations which require additional words in order to prevent "tendentious christian understanding of the verse".

This is ridiculous. Some translations are obviously more accurate than others.

I would question the accuracy when words are added, such as "Then for", as in the RSV translation: "... there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.." which you probably like.
This is more like an interpretation. This is dishonest.

Bernard, admit that you do not have a clue about Hebrew. There is no word for "for" in Hebrew. In fact I have never argued the contention between us based on any "for". You are simply misrepresenting what I have said. Shame on you.

Without the added "Then for", we have: "... there shall be seven weeks sixty-two weeks. it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.."

FFS, Bernard. can you not stop putting that fucking full stop in there. That is the problem and you are apparently still unable to grasp what I have been talking about. You are farting on about "for" and blithely ignorant about the issue.

Repeat after me:

There is no full stop in the Hebrew.
There is no full stop in the Hebrew.
There is no full stop in the Hebrew.

Get it? Now repeat it again with "semi-colon" instead of "full stop" and again with "colon" in there.

It is the deliberate break up of the text with an illicit punctuation mark that is the problem. (See the other thread we are churning through on the same issue.)

Have you understood the problem yet? I mean seriously, after several posts, do you understand that the issue concerns punctuation or not?








Well, do you?

You've seen this christian interference with regard to the tendentiousness of "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 or of nails in Ps 22:16, so cut the hypocrisy.

These are obvious christian interferences. But you are imagining things for Da 9:25-26.

Piffle. You still do not understand the issue.

If you have no desire to understand a text, why do you bother to meddle with the material? If you desire to understand then you should attempt to remove the impediments to understanding. When you use confessional translations you will get nowhere useful. Obviously you are not trying to come to grips with the significance of the text, so I guess you've ended the conversation.

Propaganda against me again. Prove me wrong with evidence and arguments, not with insulting comments.
I guess understanding the text has to be done according to you, and in a way which is, above all, anti-confessional.
In my webpage on 'Daniel" I took great pain into explaining that Cyrus' decree is the starting date for the alleged prophecy about the seventy "seven", that what shows as "Messiah, the Prince" is misleading and should be translated as "anointed chief", that the scheme involving 69 "weeks" leads exactly to the year when Jason, the legitimate high priest, (not Jesus Christ) returns to Jerusalem. That's not confessional.

Dumb, Bernard. You just don't get it. It's not your analysis per se that is confessional it's the stupid bloody translations you use.

And you still don't understand. I cannot emphasize the issue of the false punctuation marks any more than I have. You have failed to partake in the conversation. You needed to understand what was being said to you and you have made it blatantly clear that you have not.

[beowulf]

Another confessional translation and a confessional interpretation to add to the one of Chabad.

http://mordochai.tripod.com/daniyyel9.html#top

(25) Know and understand this: from the emergence of the 'word' about returning and rebuilding Y'rushalayim until a 'messiah-ruler' [was] seven septets; and [for] 62 septets it will be restored and rebuilt [with] streets and a moat, but in turbulent times

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi=true
25. And you shall know and understand that from the emergence of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed king [shall be] seven weeks, and [in] sixty-two weeks it will return and be built street and moat, but in troubled times

[spin]

Another confessional translation and a confessional interpretation to add to the one of Chabad.

http://mordochai.tripod.com/daniyyel9.html#top

(25) Know and understand this: from the emergence of the 'word' about returning and rebuilding Y'rushalayim until a 'messiah-ruler' [was] seven septets; and [for] 62 septets it will be restored and rebuilt [with] streets and a moat, but in turbulent times

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi=true
25. And you shall know and understand that from the emergence of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed king [shall be] seven weeks, and [in] sixty-two weeks it will return and be built street and moat, but in troubled times

Both are translations, the first more literal than the second.

What makes these translations specifically confessional? Is it the punctuation after the seven weeks/septets? The Oxford style recommends the comma before the "and". When you deal with the text without the ./;/: after the sixty-two weeks you naturally come to the verse and separate the seven weeks from the sixty-two.

[Ged]

I ran across a new version that the Christians have that I don’t have such easy answers for . In this version, the decree to build starts in 458bc, based on Ezra 7:7, and then runs for 483 years to 26ad using regular calendar days. According to this version, Jesus is the messiah in question and halfway through he is cut off—at around 30ad.

Why do you want to debunk it Kris? The dates are solid enough. And the interpretation that Jesus was cut off in the middle of the 70th 'week' (AD30) is the historical view of the Church.

[Kris]

There are a lot of historical viiews of the church they I disagree with. Like also think they this view glosses over a number of important points--- the "messiah " is only supposed to be cut off after the 62 weeks-- not necessarily in the middle as this view point asserts. Also, the temple was destroyed much later than the 70 weeks--- prophecy accuracy off a bit? Also, you need to take Daniel 9 with other chapters that talk about the temple reconsecretion---but you can't so that with a completely destroyed temple. This is another in a long line of trying to cram Jesus into an Old Testament prophecy that was clearly about Antiochius--- I am not a christisn, so I was looking to the board to help me figure out a few more arguments. I also communicated with John J. Collins and bought a few books to educate myself better. Just because something is a Christian position-- that doesn't make it right. I am learning that after my years of being taught otherwise.'

[spin]

I ran across a new version that the Christians have that I don’t have such easy answers for . In this version, the decree to build starts in 458bc, based on Ezra 7:7, and then runs for 483 years to 26ad using regular calendar days. According to this version, Jesus is the messiah in question and halfway through he is cut off—at around 30ad.

Why do you want to debunk it Kris? The dates are solid enough. And the interpretation that Jesus was cut off in the middle of the 70th 'week' (AD30) is the historical view of the Church.

And simply wrong. Kris's claim is also wrong of course. An easy examination of the historical framework supplied by the Persian kings in Ezra shows that the king supposedly providing the 458 BCE starting date is the wrong king. The book of Ezra does not number the kings or supply them all, but the relative chronology of the kings provided shows that it is not Artaxerxes I in Ezra 7, but Artaxerxes II. Artaxerxes I of Persia was mentioned in Ezra 4:7-23. He was then followed after a bit by Darius II (4:24-6:15)—with a summary of the building process in 4:13-15—, then Artaxerxes II of Persia in Ezra 7. This last king ruled from 404 BCE to 358 BCE. Crash goes this piece of apologetics.

[Kris]

Spin-- I actually agree with you I think! I am not sure what interpretation of mine that you are referring to as being wrong?

[spin]

Spin-- I actually agree with you I think! I am not sure what interpretation of mine that you are referring to as being wrong?

Sorry, my bad, just a cursory reading. You were only citing, not advocating, this:

In this version, the decree to build starts in 458bc, based on Ezra 7:7

So, not your claim. I am naughty.