The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by John2 »

spin wrote:
Alongside his golf trophy.
I can't wait to see Simcha Jacobovici's search for Yeshua's golf trophy.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by spin »

Coming back to "and by half of the week" (LXX Theodotion new translation) from here, Secret Alias supplied a link to the Greek text. The English phrase translates ἐν τῷ ἡμίσει τῆς ἑβδομάδος. The only other place we find ἐν τῷ ἡμίσει is 2 Sam 10:14, in which the Hebrew has ב׃חצי, ie with preposition, hence "at the half" or "in the middle". There is no preposition in Dan 9:27. Theodotion did not translate the Hebrew phrase as it was written in Hebrew.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to spin,
Bernard Muller wrote:
Your use of "several" is an unsubstantiated assertion.
Do you think the text says "crown" (singular)? If more than one, then "several" is OK.
I know the translators do not agree about "crown" being singular or plural. I thought you went for plural. l followed you on that.
I do not know about the cause of the controversy. Maybe the Hebrew here for "crown" is not a regular singular nor a regular plural. What do you think?
Here's what I said earlier:
There is no implication that there were four crowns. Four men will be in control of the crowns, not that there will be four crowns, one to each. Hebrew needs the preposition in each case be cause it does not allow the one preposition for all four names. It is this sort of fact that philologists use to argue that certain Greek texts were translated from Hebrew, because of the overuse of prepositions in lists.
What you said earlier does not match my concern and question.
Anyway, you are sticking with "crowns" (plural). So I do not know why you have been bickering about me mentioning several crowns.
And you avoided to answer my question about singular or plural for "crown" even if you implied your knowledge of Hebrew is better than most translators. BTW, your dear NRSV went for "crown" singular.

About your perceived coronation of a prince in Zec 6:11, these words would not be expected if Jeshua becomes prince: "... Behold, the man whose name is the Branch [definitively as I have shown before, Zerubbabel] for he shall grow up in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD, and shall bear royal honor, ..."
That's not the words you expect is Jeshua is being consecrated prince/ruler.
It is merely Hebrew style to bring phrases together in parallelisms so that one might finish a clause and another will start the next.
If I understand well your rather ill-explained statement, the Parallelisms refers to the two consecutive durations (D & D') in Dan 9:25 with the rest of their attached clauses (A & B). So according to you, we have in that verse AD D'B
Well I found one verse in the OT with the form AD BD' :
1 Ki 2:11 YLT "and the days that David hath reigned over Israel are forty years, in Hebron he hath reigned seven years, and in Jerusalem he hath reigned thirty and three years."
The order in the YLT reflects the order in the Hebrew.
in Hebron he hath reigned = A
seven years = D
and in Jerusalem he hath reigned = B
thirty and three years = D'

And, searching all the books of the OT on "years", I did not find anything in the form AD D'B outside of your interpretation of Daniel 9:25. I ask you: what are your Hebrew examples in the form AD D'B?
(Parenthetically, if you attempt to sum those two durations together in order to conflate the anointed prince with the anointed one of 9:26, then you remove the linkage in the second clause and leave it grammatically adrift, not attached to anything. The linkage that exists is the "and" before the sixty-two weeks: it links the second clause to the narrative structure. You have to read the sixty-two weeks as separate from the seven weeks. That means that the prince the anointed came before the sixty-two weeks.)
Well nothing his adrift and make a lot of sense that way:
"So know and understand: From the issuing of the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will again be built, with plaza and moat, but in distressful times."
That reflects the Hebrew text. Of course the punctuation is added.
I do not see anything odd with that: "It will again be built, with plaza and moat, but in distressful times." is a clause which is not adrift but indicates what will be accomplished in the sixty-nine "weeks".
Your job is to find a reasonable precedent for adding the two durations together in other Hebrew literature to make it seem a plausible option.
I think I just did that.
The chronology is problematic. Antiochus led the second entry into Egypt in 168. When did he return to Judea after that? He didn't stay long in Egypt after meeting with Popillius Laenas. The date of 15 Chislev 145th year of the Seleucid reign to mark the pollution of the temple (1 Macc 1:54) doesn't make sense, if we are to believe that Jason made his comeback while Antiochus was still in Egypt.
I studied the dating here, according to 1 Macc.: http://historical-jesus.info/danielx.html and looking back at it, I think 168 BCE is the most likely date for the cessation of the Jewish sacrifices. And 165 BCE is the most likely date for the resumption of the Jewish sacrifices. But that 's not certain.
Furthermore, in Daniel 8:13-14, which I consider an insertion written after the facts (including the reconsecration of the temple): " ... For how long is the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot?"
And he said to him, "For two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state."
'
the duration of the cessation of Jewish sacrifices is three years and 65 days.

Anyway about
Because much of the time had passed and the aim was to encourage the troops with an end in sight. But then the 3.5 got passed leading to the addendum, 1290 days, no, 1335.
But when the 3.5 years had passed (and the Jewish sacrifices re-established after 3 years of cessation), there would be no need to add up more time.
It seems to me you meant that after 3.5 years, the Jewish sacrifices did nor resume yet, so the author added 1290 days (3.5 + 3.5 = 7 years total), then because the reconsecration of the temple did not happen yet, he added more days (1335).
If it is so, that does not make sense. So what is your explanation?

BTW, I did not hear from you any comments on one of my earlier post, also related to timing: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2405&p=66413&hilit=error#p66413

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by Bernard Muller »

I think the symbolic meaning of having several crowns put on the head of the high priest was meant to sanctify the crowns rather than sanctify Jeshua. That's why these crowns do not stay in possession of Jeshua (so he could be seen with them as a token for his new "princeship") and instead given to the care of others for memorial (of Jeshua?) in the temple (to be built).
Zec 6:14-15a NRSV "And the crown[f] shall be in the care of Heldai,[g] Tobijah, Jedaiah, and Josiah[h] son of Zephaniah, as a memorial in the temple of the Lord.
Those who are far off shall come and help to build the temple of the Lord; ..."


Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by spin »

Bernard Muller wrote:
Your use of "several" is an unsubstantiated assertion.
Bernard Muller wrote:Bernard Muller wrote:Do you think the text says "crown" (singular)? If more than one, then "several" is OK.
I know the translators do not agree about "crown" being singular or plural. I thought you went for plural. l followed you on that.
I do not know about the cause of the controversy. Maybe the Hebrew here for "crown" is not a regular singular nor a regular plural. What do you think?
Here's what I said earlier:
There is no implication that there were four crowns. Four men will be in control of the crowns, not that there will be four crowns, one to each. Hebrew needs the preposition in each case be cause it does not allow the one preposition for all four names. It is this sort of fact that philologists use to argue that certain Greek texts were translated from Hebrew, because of the overuse of prepositions in lists.
What you said earlier does not match my concern and question.
Anyway, you are sticking with "crowns" (plural). So I do not know why you have been bickering about me mentioning several crowns.
Well, stop crapping on about "several" crowns. It is just an obfuscation, based on the misapprehension that a repetition of prepositions means separate receivers of crowns. Try "crowns". I do not want to have to cope with backdoor weaseling returning on the "several" front.

* Sigh *, case in point in your following post:
Bernard Muller wrote:I think the symbolic meaning of having several crowns put on the head of the high priest was meant to sanctify the crowns rather than sanctify Jeshua.
Pure eisegesis.
Bernard Muller wrote:And you avoided to answer my question about singular or plural for "crown" even if you implied your knowledge of Hebrew is better than most translators. BTW, your dear NRSV went for "crown" singular.
You've already just acknowledged:
Anyway, you are sticking with "crowns" (plural).
We have been working on the notion of crowns being plural for several posts.
Bernard Muller wrote:About your perceived coronation of a prince in Zec 6:11, these words would not be expected if Jeshua becomes prince: "... Behold, the man whose name is the Branch [definitively as I have shown before, Zerubbabel] for he shall grow up in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD, and shall bear royal honor, ..."
That's not the words you expect is Jeshua is being consecrated prince/ruler.
There is no argument here. Just unfounded conjecture. The text reports only one person crowned. There are no other crowns. The discourse is clear in that it permits only one interpretation as there is only one person mentioned as present and crowned. This persistent misunderstanding hope of yours will persistently fail because it is against the sense of the narrative in the chapter.
Bernard Muller wrote:
It is merely Hebrew style to bring phrases together in parallelisms so that one might finish a clause and another will start the next.
If I understand well your rather ill-explained statement, the Parallelisms refers to the two consecutive durations (D & D') in Dan 9:25 with the rest of their attached clauses (A & B). So according to you, we have in that verse AD D'B
Well I found one verse in the OT with the form AD BD' :
1 Ki 2:11 YLT "and the days that David hath reigned over Israel are forty years, in Hebron he hath reigned seven years, and in Jerusalem he hath reigned thirty and three years."
The order in the YLT reflects the order in the Hebrew.
in Hebron he hath reigned = A
seven years = D
and in Jerusalem he hath reigned = B
thirty and three years = D'

And, searching all the books of the OT on "years", I did not find anything in the form AD D'B outside of your interpretation of Daniel 9:25. I ask you: what are your Hebrew examples in the form AD D'B?
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. Consider Ps 1:6

for the LORD knows the way of the righteous
and the way of the wicked will perish

and Ex 20:23

Do not make with Me gods of silver
and gods of gold make not to yourselves

and Gen 4:24

If sevenfold is required for Cain
and for Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

Syntactic chiasmus is frequent in Hebrew. That's what we find in 9:27

And he shall make a strong covenant with many one week,
and half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.

That is what we see in 9:25

from 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.

Working from the Hebrew without the English confusion, you wouldn't conceive of adding the week and the half week together in 9:27.

And he shall make a strong covenant with many one week and half of the week,
he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.

So why on earth do you add them together in 9:25, for which there is no precedent? I understand exactly why christians add them together and produce translations that promote doing so.
Bernard Muller wrote:
(Parenthetically, if you attempt to sum those two durations together in order to conflate the anointed prince with the anointed one of 9:26, then you remove the linkage in the second clause and leave it grammatically adrift, not attached to anything. The linkage that exists is the "and" before the sixty-two weeks: it links the second clause to the narrative structure. You have to read the sixty-two weeks as separate from the seven weeks. That means that the prince the anointed came before the sixty-two weeks.)
Well nothing his adrift and make a lot of sense that way:
That's because you are Englishizing again and ignoring Hebrew syntax. So you have wasted your breath crapping on about an English translation and not understanding the issue. I'll try again: Clauses within a verse are connected with a waw—a special use of the waw which in itself means "and". T.J.Meek says:

In Hebrew originally, as all scholars know, there was no punctuation of any sort and no division of the consonants into words or of the words into phrases and clauses. Accordingly there was nothing to indicate the beginning of a new clause except an introductory particle and this in most cases had to be waw. (JBL 64.1 p.2)

Separating the "and 62 weeks" from what follows leaves that clause without an introductory particle, ie it is syntactically adrift as I tried to explain. It needs the waw to mark the beginning of a new clause. Do you understand that? It demonstrates that the "and 62 weeks" belongs to what follows, supplying the following clause with its introductory particle.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Your job is to find a reasonable precedent for adding the two durations together in other Hebrew literature to make it seem a plausible option.
I think I just did that.
All you did with to show you don't understand what you are trying to deal with. Where in the Hebrew bible to you get two durations that are meant to be added together into a single duration, as all the donkeys do with seven weeks and sixty-two weeks? The claim is that the duration of x is seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. I'm asking you for one guaranteed exemplar.
Bernard Muller wrote:
The chronology is problematic. Antiochus led the second entry into Egypt in 168. When did he return to Judea after that? He didn't stay long in Egypt after meeting with Popillius Laenas. The date of 15 Chislev 145th year of the Seleucid reign to mark the pollution of the temple (1 Macc 1:54) doesn't make sense, if we are to believe that Jason made his comeback while Antiochus was still in Egypt.
I studied the dating here, according to 1 Macc.: http://historical-jesus.info/danielx.html and looking back at it, I think 168 BCE is the most likely date for the cessation of the Jewish sacrifices. And 165 BCE is the most likely date for the resumption of the Jewish sacrifices. But that 's not certain.
Furthermore, in Daniel 8:13-14, which I consider an insertion written after the facts (including the reconsecration of the temple): " ... For how long is the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot?"
And he said to him, "For two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state."
'
the duration of the cessation of Jewish sacrifices is three years and 65 days.

Anyway about
Because much of the time had passed and the aim was to encourage the troops with an end in sight. But then the 3.5 got passed leading to the addendum, 1290 days, no, 1335.
But when the 3.5 years had passed (and the Jewish sacrifices re-established after 3 years of cessation), there would be no need to add up more time.
It seems to me you meant that after 3.5 years, the Jewish sacrifices did nor resume yet, so the author added 1290 days (3.5 + 3.5 = 7 years total), then because the reconsecration of the temple did not happen yet, he added more days (1335).
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.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

36 sevens + 33 seventies + a week? Naaa, seventy weeks.

Post by spin »

To revise Bernard's seventy sevens theory (which adds all the digits 7—sorry, no digits at the time—appearances of שבע [Hebrew "seven"] in the years from Cyrus's proclamation to rebuild in Dan 9:25), what we find using his table of sevens approach to the years are sixty-nine sevens (36) & seventies (33), to be followed by one week (Dan 9:27). He's missing a seventieth seven/seventy. Bernard had been promiscuously shifting between seven and week to smooth the theory. But we know for certain that 9:27 talks only of a week—as the spelling makes clear—, so we are missing one of Bernard's sevens.

A better line of analysis is to understand that Hebrew often evinces two different spellings of a word, one called "plene" or "full" and the other "defective" or spelled with just the consonants (or should I say "cnsnnts"). The plene spelling features the use of the consonant letters he, waw and yod to indicate vowels a, u, and i, apparently in an effort to represent the spelling of the word better than with just consonants. This means that the plural of "week" in Hebrew could be manifested either with those extra letters or in the "defective" form we see in Dan 9:25, which Bernard insists is "sevens". If this is true, as it certainly seems to be, we suddenly return to having seventy weeks (seven to the prince the anointed, sixty-two to the anointed one being cut off, plus the seventieth with the stoppage of sacrifices in 9:27), rather than the ultimately unfathomable sixty-nine "sevens" and a week.

Seventy prophetic weeks works. Bernard's alternative just doesn't.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by Bernard Muller »

Coming back to "and by half of the week" (LXX Theodotion new translation) from here, Secret Alias supplied a link to the Greek text. The English phrase translates ἐν τῷ ἡμίσει τῆς ἑβδομάδος. The only other place we find ἐν τῷ ἡμίσει is 2 Sam 10:14, in which the Hebrew has ב׃חצי, ie with preposition, hence "at the half" or "in the middle". There is no preposition in Dan 9:27. Theodotion did not translate the Hebrew phrase as it was written in Hebrew.
The Theodotion's version of Dan 9:27:
"And it will strengthen a covenant with many, one week, and by half of the week sacrifice and libation will cease, and in the temple there will be an abomination of desolations even until a consummation, and a consummation will be given for the desolation."
The old Greek version of Dan 9:27 has differences with Theodotion, but it includes:
"... in half of the week the sacrifice and the libation will cease, ..."
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/ ... l-nets.pdf

Were the Greek translators reading different Hebrew texts that the one the Masoretes did some seven or more centuries later? Or did they deliberately (or by mistake) omit one letter "ב" in front of "חצי".
Or did the Greek translators though that "in" instead of "for" makes more sense, for whatever reason?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to spin,
To revise Bernard's seventy sevens theory, what we find are sixty-nine sevens (36) & seventies (33) (his theory adding all the digits 7 in the years from the proclamation to rebuild in Dan 9:25), to be followed by one week (Dan 9:27). He's missing a seventieth seven/seventy. Bernard had been promiscuously shifting between seven and week to smooth the theory. But we know for certain that 9:27 talks only of a week, so we are missing one of Bernard's sevens.
As I told you before, "after the sixty-two weeks" we are in the last year of the seventy weeks, where events happen. So if "week" is really meaning week (7 days) in Dan 9:27, there is no problem: that week is within the seventieth year. And "Daniel" never wrote the week in 9:27 is the seventieth week.
A better line of analysis is to understand that Hebrew often evinces two different spellings of a word, one called "plene" or "full" and the other "defective". The plene spelling features the use of the consonant letters he, waw and yod to indicate vowels a, u, and i, apparently in an effort to represent the spelling of the word better than with just consonants. This means that the plural of week could be manifested either with those extra letters or in the form we see in Dan 9:25, which Bernard insists is "sevens". If this is true, as it certainly seems to be, we suddenly return to having seventy weeks (seven to the prince the anointed, sixty-two to the anointed one being cut off, plus the seventieth with the stoppage of sacrifices in 9:27), rather than the ultimately unfathomable sixty-nine "sevens" and a week.

Seventy prophetic weeks works. Bernard's alternative just doesn't.
Seventy prophetic weeks of years do not work because it brings you in the middle of the 1st century BCE, overshouting the events of 167-164 BCE by more than one century. And there are other problems on dating with your week of years (7 years period), such as relative to when Jeshua was crowned (for/as ???).

Sure, you accuse "Daniel", obviously a literate Jew in 167 BCE, to invent these datings, because he did not know any better.

However mine works fine, with +- one year only of potential error.

But if you think (as I do) that "Daniel" (writing 9:27 in 167 BCE) did not know about when (or even: if) the Jewish rituals will resume at the temple, why would he venture they restarted 3.5 years later?

Sure my biggest problem in the so-called implied "for" in front of "half the week". But in Num 22:20 and 1 Sam 26:7 "at" or "in" is implied (instead of "for") in front of "night".
And "middle of the week" can be a legitimate translation, according to Judges 16:3 and Ruth 3:8.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to spin,
Pure eisegesis.
You can use the same word for your theory about Jeshua, because he received crowns on his head, becoming a prince/ruler.
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.
I provided the closest passage to your alleged Dan 9:25 parallelisms, with consecutive durations, and the so-called parallelism was different.
Syntactic chiasmus is frequent in Hebrew

Even if they would be frequent, they are not the rule.
That is what we see in 9:25
from 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.
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). 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.
It shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
Not all new clauses start with a 'waw' in Hebrew.
Not all 'waw' start a new clause.
Working from the Hebrew without the English confusion, you wouldn't conceive of adding the week and the half week together in 9:27.
No, because the Hebrew says "half of the week", so that "half of the week" is part of the week mentioned earlier.

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 (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.
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.
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.
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."

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by spin »

Bernard Muller wrote:to spin,
To revise Bernard's seventy sevens theory, what we find are sixty-nine sevens (36) & seventies (33) (his theory adding all the digits 7 in the years from the proclamation to rebuild in Dan 9:25), to be followed by one week (Dan 9:27). He's missing a seventieth seven/seventy. Bernard had been promiscuously shifting between seven and week to smooth the theory. But we know for certain that 9:27 talks only of a week, so we are missing one of Bernard's sevens.
As I told you before, "after the sixty-two weeks" we are in the last year of the seventy weeks, where events happen.
Nonsense. You are transparently bullshitting. The text gives you all the weeks by number. You don't impose them to suit your theory. It gives you seven (שבע), then sixty-two (ששים ושנים) and then one (אחד) week, so that you can count them out like any other reader. You're off with the fairies if you seriously believe this nonsense approach you just advocated.
Bernard Muller wrote:So if "week" is really meaning week (7 days) in Dan 9:27, there is no problem: that week is within the seventieth year. And "Daniel" never wrote the week in 9:27 is the seventieth week.
A better line of analysis is to understand that Hebrew often evinces two different spellings of a word, one called "plene" or "full" and the other "defective". The plene spelling features the use of the consonant letters he, waw and yod to indicate vowels a, u, and i, apparently in an effort to represent the spelling of the word better than with just consonants. This means that the plural of week could be manifested either with those extra letters or in the form we see in Dan 9:25, which Bernard insists is "sevens". If this is true, as it certainly seems to be, we suddenly return to having seventy weeks (seven to the prince the anointed, sixty-two to the anointed one being cut off, plus the seventieth with the stoppage of sacrifices in 9:27), rather than the ultimately unfathomable sixty-nine "sevens" and a week.

Seventy prophetic weeks works. Bernard's alternative just doesn't.
Seventy prophetic weeks of years do not work because it brings you in the middle of the 1st century BCE, overshouting the events of 167-164 BCE by more than one century. And there are other problems on dating with your week of years (7 years period), such as relative to when Jeshua was crowned (for/as ???).
There was a reason we looked at the inaccuracy of Daniel and that has slipped off the edge of your memory. You are trying to sell the notion that people who talk about Darius the Mede and Belshazzar as king or there being four Persian kings has any idea of real history, such that they can tell you exactly how many years passed from the time Cyrus gave permission to rebuild to the authorial present. This is the same culture that gave you Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnezzar or the spelling that gives us Nebuchadnezzar rather than Nebuchadrezzar (a blunder that shows a temporal dissociation). We get Greek musical instruments in the court of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 3:7). This stuff is neither history nor in any way accurate, yet you insist that the seventy weeks is ultra-accurate. That's off the planet.
Bernard Muller wrote:Sure, you accuse "Daniel", obviously a literate Jew in 167 BCE, to invent these datings, because he did not know any better.
They are essentially unimportant, there only to show the past, present and future are in God's hands. Do you think that anyone of the period would know that the dating was not accurate??
Bernard Muller wrote:However mine works fine, with +- one year only of potential error.
Sixty-nine sevens (36) & seventies (33) does not work. It's like the Ptolemaic universe.
Bernard Muller wrote:But if you think (as I do) that "Daniel" (writing 9:27 in 167 BCE) did not know about when (or even: if) the Jewish rituals will resume at the temple, why would he venture they restarted 3.5 years later?
I've already discussed this. The datings are indications that an end was foreseeable. All it needed was a couple of victories for one to see the possibility of an end in sight. Give it a few campaign seasons and that allows a guesstimate.
Bernard Muller wrote:Sure my biggest problem in the so-called implied "for" in front of "half the week".
Your biggest problem is the incoherence of your criteria so that you have to fudge your way from sixty-nine modern digits to invent an unstated seventieth to pretend to fit the prophecy.
Bernard Muller wrote:But in Num 22:20 and 1 Sam 26:7 "at" or "in" is implied (instead of "for") in front of "night".
There is no comparison. You are not looking at a word analogous to "half".
Bernard Muller wrote:And "middle of the week" can be a legitimate translation, according to Judges 16:3 and Ruth 3:8.
There are prepositions in both Jdg 16:3 (עד־חצי + בחצי) and Ruth 3:8 (בחצי).

You're going to keep demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about. That doesn't help your cause at all.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Post Reply