Moderators John317 Posted February 24, 2011 Moderators Posted February 24, 2011 John317 had not heard back form you in a while on this topic. Must have lost interest? No, I haven't lost interest. I have a family and also have diabetes which prevents me from staying online 24/7 as I would otherwise enjoy doing and have done (almost) in the past. I never lose interest. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted February 24, 2011 Moderators Posted February 24, 2011 A notable exception is Originally Posted By: Daniel 2:39 And after <0870> thee shall arise <06966> (8748) another <0317> kingdom <04437> inferior <0772> to thee <04481>, and another <0317> third <08523> kingdom <04437> of brass <05174>, which shall bear rule <07981> (8748) over all <03606> the earth <0772>. The word translated inferior in most Bibles (if not all) is translated EARTH almost everywhere else and at the end of the same verse. The translators understood the interpretation of the vision in Daniel 2 and rendered the meaning of the words to fit their understanding. 1) How do you believe it ought to be translated? Can you give at least two reputable translations that agree with you? 2) Just because the same word is used doesn't mean it should be translated the same way. There are thousands of examples in the Bible of this. Of course we also have many examples of this in English and in other languages such as NT Greek. 3) What part of speech and function does the word have in the first part of Daniel 2: 39 and what part of speech is it in the last part of that verse? 4) The word as it first occurs in verse 39 is literally, "earthward from you." Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted February 24, 2011 Moderators Posted February 24, 2011 ...The translators understood the interpretation of the vision in Daniel 2 and rendered the meaning of the words to fit their understanding. That methodology is true in Daniel 7:23 as well Quote: Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. The translators knowing the 4-kingdom meaning of Daniel 2 & 7 chose kingdom rather than the words used in Ezra - realm, reign, and royal. The word for kingdom is only translated as kingdom in Daniel and never in Ezra even though it is the same word. And all the Bibles that I have double checked do the same thing EVEN THOUGH the use of KINGDOM in Daniel 7:23 does not agree with HEAVEN'S clear statement in 7:17 that these four beasts (which includes the fourth beast)are kings. Yes kings and kingdoms can be interchangeable, but the word Heaven used for KING(S) is KING(S) 180-times in Aramaic and the same Hebrew word 2325 times with only 5 exceptions. Heaven is clear that it is kings. The word kingdom on the other hand is not exclusively kingdoms since it relates to kingly authority, realm reign, royal, etc. Daniel 7: 23 (Aramaic): ESV "Thus he said: 'As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all the kingdoms, and it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces. 1) Is it possible to translate this word correctly as "kingdoms"? 2) Are the four beasts representative of four kingdoms or are they four different individual kings? 3) Remember that if you don't know a language, you should always follow the opinion of those who do know it, particularly if they all agree. In the case of Daniel 7: 23, they all agree, including the ancient Jews who translated the Hebrew and Aramaic into the Greek Septuagint. You will find agreement about this in translations as diverse as the Jewish Publications Society, the Catholic New American Bible, the Jehovah's Witness' New World Translation, Robert Young's Literal, and Rotherham's Emphasized. 4) The question that needs to be asked and answered, then, is why do they all agree that this word in Daniel 7: 23 should be translated "kingdom" instead of "king"? The answer is that it is a different form of the same word, much like Kingdom is a different form from King; or as "water" is a different form from "watered." 5) The word for "kingdom" or "kingdoms" is given the number 4437 in Strongs Concordance; and the word for "king"or "kings" is assigned Strongs# 4430. If you can, get a large-print Hebrew Bible and compare the words. You will see some slight differences, but those differences change the meaning of the word. Specifically, compare the Aramaic words that have been translated "kings" in Daniel 7: 24 with the word translated "kingdoms" in that same verse. 6) The Aramaic word in Daniel 7: 17 is #4430, the same word that is translated "kings" in Daniel 7: 24. It is the same Aramaic word that is translated "king" in Ezra 5: 13; 6: 1, etc. Now I have to eat, but God willing I will be right back to add some more after I finish these delicious looking tacos. :-) Added later: 7) Notice that in Ezra 1: 1, 2, the word translated "kingdom" and "kingdoms" is assigned # 4467, whereas "king" is #4428. On the other hand, "reign" is #4438. 8) The linguistic structure of the book of Daniel is A. Hebrew: 1: 1- 2: 4a Aramaic: 2: 4b- 7: 27 C) Hebrew 8: 1-12:13 9) Those parts of Ezra which are written in Aramaic are 4: 8 to 6: 18; 7: 12-26. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
hch Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Originally Posted By: hch A notable exception is The word translated inferior in most Bibles (if not all) is translated EARTH almost everywhere else and at the end of the same verse. The translators understood the interpretation of the vision in Daniel 2 and rendered the meaning of the words to fit their understanding. John 3:17 I am sorry to hear about your physical ailments. all the more reason to wrap it up down here and take our new bodies for a spin. Originally Posted By: John317 1) How do you believe it ought to be translated? Can you give at least two reputable translations that agree with you? Since I don't speak the language, the dictionary says "earth" Originally Posted By: John317 2) Just because the same word is used doesn't mean it should be translated the same way. There are thousands of examples in the Bible of this. Of course we also have many examples of this in English and in other languages such as NT Greek. I understand the difficulty without speaking the language. I have used Strong's on numerous occasions to get literal translations when the "translators" bend their renditions to fit their understanding. Originally Posted By: John317 3) What part of speech and function does the word have in the first part of Daniel 2: 39 and what part of speech is it in the last part of that verse? 4) The word as it first occurs in verse 39 is literally, "earthward from you." [/quote'] I leave it as earth because from my study Daniel it is contrasting the symbolic earth with the whole earth. Earthward is a good alternate choice. Both fit the criteria in the prophecy better than inferior. leaving it as Earth does not make much sense when translated into English, but it is not uncommon to encounter phrases that don't translate well. In Spanish, there is a phrase that translates "Be water" it means be careful and agua is the word used, but it does not mean careful, it means water. I believe that it is ok to translate literally when the exact meaning is in question. Blessings Henry Quote His child Henry Bible student/Author https://www.loudcry101.com
Moderators John317 Posted February 25, 2011 Moderators Posted February 25, 2011 1) How do you believe it ought to be translated? Can you give at least two reputable translations that agree with you? Originally Posted By: hch Since I don't speak the language, the dictionary says "earth" Let's try it: Daniel 2:39 Another kingdom earth to you shall arise after you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. Does it work? Not really, right? How about "earthward from you"? So: "Another kingdom earthward from you shall arise after you..." Still does not make sense, does it? If we translated the Bible completely literally, people would have a very hard time understanding it. For instance, if translated literally, Matt. 4: 24 would say some of the people came to Jesus because they were "moon-struck." What in the world is that? What also is meant by "earthward from you"? It means "down" or "inferior"? In other words, the earth is "down" as opposed to being "up," or "superior." Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted February 25, 2011 Moderators Posted February 25, 2011 [i believe that it is ok to translate literally when the exact meaning is in question. Within reason, me too. But there are no Bibles that are completely literal, because no one would ever want to read them. It simply wouldn't make any sense. However, the closest thing to it are the interlinears, but even those aren't completely literal. If we were to translate John 1: 1 completely literally, the last part of that verse would read, "And God was the word [logos]." But that would be inaccurate and misleading. That is why I say, "Within reason." Some literal translations would definitely not be reasonable and, like John 1: 1, would only lead to misunderstanding among those who would think wrongly that their literal translation gave them superior knowledge. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted February 25, 2011 Moderators Posted February 25, 2011 [3) What part of speech and function does the word have in the first part of Daniel 2: 39 and what part of speech is it in the last part of that verse? 4) The word as it first occurs in verse 39 is literally, "earthward from you." Originally Posted By: hch I leave it as earth because from my study Daniel it is contrasting the symbolic earth with the whole earth. Earthward is a good alternate choice. Both fit the criteria in the prophecy better than inferior. OK, but in the first occurance in Daniel 2: 39, it is an adjective, whereas it is a noun in the last part of that sentence. So they have different functions, and hence it is impossible to translate it in the same way. That is very critical when you're translating. Originally Posted By: hch leaving it as Earth does not make much sense when translated into English, but it is not uncommon to encounter phrases that don't translate well. In Spanish, there is a phrase that translates "Be water" it means be careful and agua is the word used, but it does not mean careful, it means water. If you are translating for someone, you wouldn't want to tell someone that the speaker of Spanish just told him to "be water." That is not what it signifies in Spanish, although that is the literal meaning of the words when not understood in their context. That would be like translating literally the words "jump in" when what is meant is "participate." If the translator is not careful, he could be telling someone to literally "jump," which would really be confusing to everyone. So it is the work of a good translator not only to understand the literal meaning of the individual words but to know how to translate them into a second language so that people will have the same thoughts as the original speaker. Now when the speaker of Spanish says, "Be water," we can assume that he is not thinking about actual water but about being careful. So it would be a big mistake for the translator to tell someone that the speaker just told him to "Be water." He wouldn't last long as a translator. Imagine translating literally for a speaker in English who tells someone, "I have been dying to meet you." Some languages have no such expression, so the translater would have to adopt the words in the other language that means, "I have been wanting (or hoping) to meet you." Otherwise someone might think you are in need to a hosptal or that the thought of meeting them made you deathly ill. lol That reminds me of a translator for Jimmy Carter when he visited a European country, who told his listeners that President Carter was lusting after all their pretty women. That translator was fired real fast after the look of horror and then the sound of laughter swept through the crowd as they realized that the translator had been too literal in his interpretation. He's failed to consider the context and the true significance of the words and to translate them correctly into a foreign language. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
hch Posted February 25, 2011 Posted February 25, 2011 John 3:17, Thank you for your response; it was most interesting. I am sorry that I was not completely clear. I did some editing of my original post in red to clarify. ...The translators understood the interpretation of the vision in Daniel 2 and rendered the meaning of the words to fit their understanding. That methodology [clarification added(interpreting according to fulfillment)] is true in Daniel 7:23 as well Quote His child Henry Bible student/Author https://www.loudcry101.com
hch Posted February 25, 2011 Posted February 25, 2011 1) How do you believe it ought to be translated? Can you give at least two reputable translations that agree with you? Quote His child Henry Bible student/Author https://www.loudcry101.com
Moderators John317 Posted February 25, 2011 Moderators Posted February 25, 2011 The Aramaic word in Daniel 7: 17 is #4430, the same word that is translated "kings" in Daniel 7: 24. It is the same Aramaic word that is translated "king" in Ezra 5: 13; 6: 1, etc. Originally Posted By: hch That is great because I made the point in my previous post that the word for kings in 7:17 is king(s) almost 3000 times in the Bible (whether Aramaic or Hebrew) and cannot be confused with the word kingdom, which the translators have clearly done when they got to 7:23 and rendered a word that could have been realm or reign as kingdom. The word that is translated "kings" in 7: 17 is not identical with the word that is translated "kingdom" in 7: 23. They are two distinct words. The word in Daniel 7: 23 is Strongs #4437 Malku, or Malkuw, and means kingdom, kingly, realm and reign. It occurs also in Ezra 4: 24 where it is translated as "reign." It occurs about 44 times in the book of Daniel and is consistently translated there in the KJV as "kingdom." (Reign and Kingdom are synonymous, hence "Reign of God" or "Kingdom of God" are identical in meaning.) It corresponds to Strongs #4438, a Hebrew word, Malkhuth, derived from #4427, Malakh. Malkhuth "means dominion, an empire, a kingdom, a realm, a reign, royal rule, sovereign power." See page 2,333 of the Complete Word Study Old Testament. By contrast, the word in Daniel 7: 17 is Strongs #4430, Melek, a Chaldee/Aramaic word meaning "a king," and corresponds to #4428, the Hebrew word, Melek, which also means "a king." This Aramaic word occurs only in Ezra and Daniel, always translated as "king" or "kings." The Hebrew word, Melek, occurs many hundreds of times throughout the rest of the Hebrew Bible and is consistently translated "king" or "kings." Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted February 25, 2011 Moderators Posted February 25, 2011 ...I leave it as earth because from my study Daniel it is contrasting the symbolic earth with the whole earth. Earthward is a good alternate choice. Both fit the criteria in the prophecy better than inferior. Let's look at Daniel 2: 39 again. Please explain again how Daniel is contrasting the symbolic earth with the whole earth, and show how "earthward from you" fits the criteria in the prophecy better than the word "inferior." Daniel is talking about the Medo-Persia Empire, which, as silver is inferior to gold, so Medo-Persia was inferior to the Babylonian Empire in magnificence and wealth. Babylon's civilization was much superior to that of the Medes and Persians. Daniel 2:36-44 "This was the dream. Now we will tell the king its interpretation. [37] You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory, [38] and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the children of man, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the heavens, making you rule over them all—you are the head of gold. [39] Another kingdom inferior to you shall arise after you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. [40] And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things. And like iron that crushes, it shall break and crush all these. [41] And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom, but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the soft clay. [42] And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle. [43] As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay. [44] And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
hch Posted February 25, 2011 Posted February 25, 2011 Originally Posted By: John 3:17 The Aramaic word in Daniel 7: 17 is #4430, the same word that is translated "kings" in Daniel 7: 24. It is the same Aramaic word that is translated "king" in Ezra 5: 13; 6: 1, etc. Originally Posted By: hch That is great because I made the point in my previous post that the word for kings in 7:17 is king(s) almost 3000 times in the Bible (whether Aramaic or Hebrew) and cannot be confused with the word kingdom, which the translators have clearly done when they got to 7:23 and rendered a word that could have been realm or reign as kingdom. The word that is translated "kings" in 7: 17 is not identical with the word that is translated "kingdom" in 7: 23. They are two distinct words. The word in Daniel 7: 23 is Strongs #4437 Malku, or Malkuw, and means kingdom, kingly, realm and reign. It occurs also in Ezra 4: 24 where it is translated as "reign." It occurs about 44 times in the book of Daniel and is consistently translated there in the KJV as "kingdom." (Reign and Kingdom are synonymous, hence "Reign of God" or "Kingdom of God" are identical in meaning.) It corresponds to Strongs #4438, a Hebrew word, Malkhuth, derived from #4427, Malakh. Malkhuth "means dominion, an empire, a kingdom, a realm, a reign, royal rule, sovereign power." See page 2,333 of the Complete Word Study Old Testament. By contrast, the word in Daniel 7: 17 is Strongs #4430, Melek, a Chaldee/Aramaic word meaning "a king," and corresponds to #4428, the Hebrew word, Melek, which also means "a king." This Aramaic word occurs only in Ezra and Daniel, always translated as "king" or "kings." The Hebrew word, Melek, occurs many hundreds of times throughout the rest of the Hebrew Bible and is consistently translated "king" or "kings." Quote His child Henry Bible student/Author https://www.loudcry101.com
hch Posted February 25, 2011 Posted February 25, 2011 ...I leave it as earth because from my study Daniel it is contrasting the symbolic earth with the whole earth. Earthward is a good alternate choice. Both fit the criteria in the prophecy better than inferior. Quote His child Henry Bible student/Author https://www.loudcry101.com
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.