One of the historical "markers" in the 70 weeks -- A.D. 27

[Samie]

True, the decree concerns the rebuilding of Jerusalem. But the verse specifies that from the WHEN of the issuance of the decree - NOT the COMPLETION of what are in the decree - to the appearing of the Prince, the city shall be built with streets and moat.

NRS Daniel 9:25 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.

Granting that the city has been rebuilt and that it took under 490 days, so what? Given the current technology, is that impossible?

[brotherly love]

True, the decree concerns the rebuilding of Jerusalem. But the verse specifies that from the WHEN of the issuance of the decree - NOT the COMPLETION of what are in the decree - to the appearing of the Prince, the city shall be built with streets and moat.

NRS Daniel 9:25 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.

Granting that the city has been rebuilt and that it took under 490 days, so what? Given the current technology, is that impossible?

​To begin with, good translation. It actually translates the word anointed, and shows there is no definite article behind anointed, so it reads "an anointed" instead of "the anointed"

You should notice that there are two anointed individuals in the text, this is on account that the text gives the term weeks for both the 7 weeks and 62 weeks.These are distinct periods. There is an anointed individual at the end or beginning of the 7 weeks and another in the 62 weeks.

In the text it states that it would be built again in within the 62 weeks, this rebuild would also take place in the first 7 weeks, or why give a word to rebuild it. To make matters worse, the rebuild does not have to be complete at the end of the 62 weeks, it would be within the 62 weeks. The text tells us that an anointed would come at the end of the 62 weeks. 

490 days would be 1.34 years, minus the last week, and that the rebuild would start during the 7 weeks, and be finished at some point during the 62 weeks-so it gets much shorter than 1.3 years.

This is hardly plausible

Edited June 2, 2015 by brotherly love

[Samie]

Hardly plausible maybe for you, but not in reality. Scriptures say "it will be rebuilt", and it will be.

[brotherly love]

Hardly plausible maybe for you, but not in reality. Scriptures say "it will be rebuilt", and it will be.

​It was rebuilt. This is future tense from Daniel's persepective and situation while Jerusalem and the Temple laid in destruction. To rip this out of Daniels historic context and situation is to render it meaningless to him and Israel in captivity hoping to return and rebuild.

[Samie]

The rebuilding referred to in Dan 9:25 is yet in the future. The rebuilding will be necessitated by the destruction referred to in Dan 11:16 before the reign of the second prince in Dan 9:26, who will be responsible for the setting up the abomination of desolation referred to in Dan 9:27. He is the vile-person king in Dan 11:21 whose army will take away the "daily" and then set up the abomination of desolation in Dan 11:31. All these will find fulfillment shortly before the Second Coming.

[brotherly love]

The rebuilding referred to in Dan 9:25 is yet in the future. The rebuilding will be necessitated by the destruction referred to in Dan 11:16 before the reign of the second prince in Dan 9:26, who will be responsible for the setting up the abomination of desolation referred to in Dan 9:27. He is the vile-person king in Dan 11:21 whose army will take away the "daily" and then set up the abomination of desolation in Dan 11:31. All these will find fulfillment shortly before the Second Coming.

This would make the Bible seem to be a little Schizophrenic. It delivers a message to a specific people in a specific situation, but the text talks over their heads and is really all about us?

[Samie]

The vision and the meaning of the vision were all given to and recorded by Daniel, NOT to a group of people. Daniel was told by Gabriel that the vision concerning the taking away of the daily concerns the time of the end (see Dan 8:17).

The fierce-looking king of Dan 8:23 is the second prince of Dan 9:26 = the vile-person king of Dan 11:21 = the man of sin of 2 Thes 2 = the first beast of Rev 13.  The taking away of the daily will be followed by the setting up of the abomination of desolation (AoD). Jesus Himself said that the setting up of the AoD will trigger the great tribulation, immediately followed by unusual celestial phenomena, and will be capped by the coming of the Son of Man.

In Dan 12:1,2, the great tribulation is called the time of trouble, at which period resurrection occurs and the people of God written in the book (of life?) will all be delivered. I believe that the resurrection of the dead and the deliverance of God's people written in the book of life will occur at the Second Coming.

[hch]

​Lets just take a look at tDaniel 9 and the translation you used. It is a blatant mistranslation. They mistranslated משיח ~ Moshiach even in the span of a few verses.

Seventy weeks^[a] are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of^[b] sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint(משיח ~ Moshiach) the Most Holy.

²⁵ “Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah9(משיח ~ Moshiach) the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
The street^[c] shall be built again, and the wall,^[d]
Even in troublesome times.

²⁶ “And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah (משיח ~ Moshiach) shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

This would be a proper translation

²⁴ “Seventy weeks^[c] are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint .a most holy place.^{[d] 25} Know therefore and understand that 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. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again^[e] with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. ²⁶ And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

​Brotherly love,

Had a few minutes to catch up on this thread this morning.

Your stated point in this post was to prove: "They mistranslated משיח ~ Moshiach even in the span of a few verses"

example #1 "And to anoint (משיח ~ Moshiach) the Most Holy."

Strong numbers the word ~ Moshiach H4886 to help students.

example #2 " Messiah (משיח ~ Moshiach) the Prince,"

Strong numbers the word ~ משׁיח Mâshı̂yach H4899 which is spelled differently than the word in ex #1.

Those jots and tittles have significance. They are put there  for a reason.

In this comparison very similar words were presented as though they were one and the same.

But since different words are being compared,

it must be concluded that the evidence presented does not support the assertion.

[hch]

The Greek word for "prince" means ruler or chief leader.  It's POSSIBLE that  "anointed prince" might be an anointed High Priest - of a rededicated Temple on the Mount. 

​8thday,

Great point "Greek word for "prince" means ruler or chief leader"

but did you mean to say GREEK rather than Hebrew or Aramaic?

True: All things are possible, but is it probable that there would be a "a rededicated Temple on the Mount"?

 

[brotherly love]

​Brotherly love,

Had a few minutes to catch up on this thread this morning.

Your stated point in this post was to prove: "They mistranslated משיח ~ Moshiach even in the span of a few verses"

example #1 "And to anoint (משיח ~ Moshiach) the Most Holy."

Strong numbers the word ~ Moshiach H4886 to help students.

example #2 " Messiah (משיח ~ Moshiach) the Prince,"

Strong numbers the word ~ משׁיח Mâshı̂yach H4899 which is spelled differently than the word in ex #1.

Those jots and tittles have significance. They are put there  for a reason.

In this comparison very similar words were presented as though they were one and the same.

But since different words are being compared,

it must be concluded that the evidence presented does not support the assertion.

​From your response I don't think you have studied Hebrew, but even on an elementary level you have proven my point. Please dispute my point in bold below. All you have to do is go to strongs or blue letter bible and click on the word and check all 39 references to mashiyach

In example #1 the word moshiach is a verb of the same root as mashiyach. It is used in the Bible 69 times, and is always translated as anointed with an action. A Hebrew verb has different verb tenses like Qal and Niphal

In example #2 the word mashiyach is a masculine noun of the same root. It is used in the Bible 39 times. In the KJV, 37 times it is translated as anointed, but 2 times it is not translated, but "the Messiah" is imposed on the text.

Lets give a third example. the word mishchah is a feminine noun strongs H4888. It is the same root as the other two examples and means anointed or anointing.

It would be equivalent to the words ran,runs, running or runner.

To argue what the King James has done would be likened to arguing that the sun revolves around planet Earth, but at least in the times past some had an excuse for that belief, the KJV does not have this excuse-they blatantly mistranslated anointed

Lets take this up one notch

commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks

-Notice how the KJV inserts "the" behind messiah?

-This is also a blatant mistranslation. There is no definite article (Hey ~ ה)  behind the word mashiyach. There is no reason at all to insert "the' into the text. This is why you will read "an anointed prince" in proper translations.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2015 by brotherly love

[hch]

​From your response I don't think you have studied Hebrew, but even on an elementary level you have proven my point. Please dispute my point in bold below. All you have to do is go to strongs or blue letter bible and click on the word and check all 39 references to mashiyach

In example #1 the word moshiach is a verb of the same root as mashiyach. It is used in the Bible 69 times, and is always translated as anointed with an action. A Hebrew verb has different verb tenses like Qal and Niphal

In example #2 the word mashiyach is a masculine noun of the same root. It is used in the Bible 39 times. In the KJV, 37 times it is translated as anointed, but 2 times it is not translated, but "the Messiah" is imposed on the text.

Lets give a third example. the word mishchah is a feminine noun strongs H4888. It is the same root as the other two examples and means anointed or anointing.

It would be equivalent to the words ran,runs, running or runner.

To argue what the King James has done would be likened to arguing that the sun revolves around planet Earth, but at least in the times past some had an excuse for that belief, the KJV does not have this excuse-they blatantly mistranslated anointed

Lets take this up one notch

commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks

-Notice how the KJV inserts "the" behind messiah?

-This is also a blatant mistranslation. There is no definite article (Hey ~ ה)  behind the word mashiyach. There is no reason at all to insert "the' into the text. This is why you will read "an anointed prince" in proper translations.

 

 

​"Semitic languages, Hebrew in particular, have a unique feature: application of consonant roots on word patterns (mishqalim in Hebrew). It's the most powerful tool of Hebrew morphology (i.e. word building). You take a root, like K-T-V (meaning: write/writing), combine it with different patterns, and that's how you get words like "writing", "book", "to write", "to dictate", "reporter", etc"  (http://www.ulpan.net/hebrew-roots-and-patterns)

Are you suggesting that words that are built from the same root are the same word after they have been modified?

A reporter writes, but words built from the root are not all reporters.

Apples and oranges are both fruits, but they are not the same.

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

​8thday,

Great point "Greek word for "prince" means ruler or chief leader"

but did you mean to say GREEK rather than Hebrew or Aramaic?

True: All things are possible, but is it probable that there would be a "a rededicated Temple on the Mount"?

 

​Rather than type out a long answer, let me point you to a study at my website - prophecyviewpoint.com. 

http://prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/40k- Another Temple.pdf

[brotherly love]

​"Semitic languages, Hebrew in particular, have a unique feature: application of consonant roots on word patterns (mishqalim in Hebrew). It's the most powerful tool of Hebrew morphology (i.e. word building). You take a root, like K-T-V (meaning: write/writing), combine it with different patterns, and that's how you get words like "writing", "book", "to write", "to dictate", "reporter", etc"  (http://www.ulpan.net/hebrew-roots-and-patterns)

Are you suggesting that words that are built from the same root are the same word after they have been modified?

A reporter writes, but words built from the root are not all reporters.

Apples and oranges are both fruits, but they are not the same.

 

 

​Anoint could be translated to brush, smear, anoint or to paint.There is also the verb tense like qal an niphal to name a few. A Hebrew noun can be masculine or feminine: like a painter, a brusher, or an anointed. In order for a person to be the painter, or the smearer, the difinite article ( ה) would have to be placed before the noun.

I was giving a summary in context of anointed. Context is what gives the word it meaning. Hebrew is a concrete language derived from pictographs from everyday experiences

Now, if you could, please look up the 39 references of mashiyach in the KJV and others, and tell me where it is not translated two times.

Edited June 4, 2015 by brotherly love

[Samie]

​Anoint could be translated to brush, smear, anoint or to paint.There is also the verb tense like qal an niphal to name a few. A Hebrew noun can be masculine or feminine: like a painter, a brusher, or an anointed. In order for a person to be the painter, or the smearer, the difinite article ( ה) would have to be placed before the noun.

​With your knowledge of Hebrew, can you tell me why or how the following is not Biblically sound?

"The word "abomination" in Dan 11:31 & 12:11 is from the Hebrew #Quvi shiqquts which elsewhere in the Old Testament refers to idols or images which pagans worship as their deities (1 Kings 11:5,7; 2 Kings 23:13). In Scriptures, there is only one image or idol that will cause desolation to the end time people of God: the image of the beast (see Rev 13:15-17). Therefore, the abomination of desolation = the image of the beast."

[brotherly love]

​With your knowledge of Hebrew, can you tell me why or how the following is not Biblically sound?

"The word "abomination" in Dan 11:31 & 12:11 is from the Hebrew #Quvi shiqquts which elsewhere in the Old Testament refers to idols or images which pagans worship as their deities (1 Kings 11:5,7; 2 Kings 23:13). In Scriptures, there is only one image or idol that will cause desolation to the end time people of God: the image of the beast (see Rev 13:15-17). Therefore, the abomination of desolation = the image of the beast."

​What is the image of the beast?In the wellspring of the feast of dedication Antiochius and the Greek Hellenists Jews desolated the Temple by offering pigs blood and persecuting the saints, and forbidding the God of Israel all together. This is idolatry. In revelation 13, the symbols match the horrors that point to what Antiochus did.

[Samie]

​With your knowledge of Hebrew, can you tell me why or how the following is not Biblically sound?

"The word "abomination" in Dan 11:31 & 12:11 is from the Hebrew #Quvi shiqquts which elsewhere in the Old Testament refers to idols or images which pagans worship as their deities (1 Kings 11:5,7; 2 Kings 23:13). In Scriptures, there is only one image or idol that will cause desolation to the end time people of God: the image of the beast (see Rev 13:15-17). Therefore, the abomination of desolation = the image of the beast."

​To this post, you replied:

​What is the image of the beast?In the wellspring of the feast of dedication Antiochius and the Greek Hellenists Jews desolated the Temple by offering pigs blood and persecuting the saints, and forbidding the God of Israel all together. This is idolatry. In revelation 13, the symbols match the horrors that point to what Antiochus did.

​Thank you. So the "image of the beast" is "idolatry". In Rev 13:15, the image of the beast speaks. Does idolatry speak?

[brotherly love]

​To this post, you replied:

​Thank you. So the "image of the beast" is "idolatry". In Rev 13:15, the image of the beast speaks. Does idolatry speak?

​Do beasts come out of the sea with heads and horns

[hch]

​a big mistake is to fuse the book of Daniel and the book of revelation together, they are two separate ..

Ideas have consequences

​

Brotherly Love,

Are you claiming to know more about this matter than Ellen White?

She clearly stated:

"The books of Daniel and the Revelation are one." {7BC 971.5}

"The book of Revelation, in connection with the book of Daniel, especially demands study."  {Ed 191.2}

"As we near the close of this world's history, the prophecies recorded by Daniel demand our special attention, as they relate to the very time in which we are living. With them should be linked the teachings of the last book of the New Testament Scriptures. Satan has led many to believe that the prophetic portions of the writings of Daniel and of John the revelator cannot be understood. But the promise is plain that special blessing will accompany the study of these prophecies. "The wise shall understand" (verse 10), was spoken of the visions of Daniel that were to be unsealed in the latter days; and of the revelation that Christ gave to His servant John for the guidance of God's people all through the centuries, the promise is, "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein." Revelation 1:3."  {PK 547.2}

Since Daniel (and Revelation) relates to the very time in which we are living, this whole thread that is focusing on Daniel's application to the past is missing something that relates to the time in which we are living.

The consequences of your ideas will not bring light.

Christian regards

 

[Samie]

​Do beasts come out of the sea with heads and horns

​John saw one. He recorded it in Rev 13:1. So Yes. Scriptures say so.

BTW, I was the one who first asked you a question, to which you replied with a question, instead of answering my question. Yet I answered your question. Now, can you answer my question? Here again:

​Thank you. So the "image of the beast" is "idolatry". In Rev 13:15, the image of the beast speaks. Does idolatry speak?

​

[brotherly love]

​

Brotherly Love,

Are you claiming to know more about this matter than Ellen White?

She clearly stated:

"The books of Daniel and the Revelation are one." {7BC 971.5}

"The book of Revelation, in connection with the book of Daniel, especially demands study."  {Ed 191.2}

"As we near the close of this world's history, the prophecies recorded by Daniel demand our special attention, as they relate to the very time in which we are living. With them should be linked the teachings of the last book of the New Testament Scriptures. Satan has led many to believe that the prophetic portions of the writings of Daniel and of John the revelator cannot be understood. But the promise is plain that special blessing will accompany the study of these prophecies. "The wise shall understand" (verse 10), was spoken of the visions of Daniel that were to be unsealed in the latter days; and of the revelation that Christ gave to His servant John for the guidance of God's people all through the centuries, the promise is, "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein." Revelation 1:3."  {PK 547.2}

Since Daniel (and Revelation) relates to the very time in which we are living, this whole thread that is focusing on Daniel's application to the past is missing something that relates to the time in which we are living.

The consequences of your ideas will not bring light.

Christian regards

 

​I have to read Ellen White in light of the Bible, just like any other person. Where she comes up short, then the bible is the authority. If this is not so, then we have propped up another Pope.

[brotherly love]

​John saw one. He recorded it in Rev 13:1. So Yes. Scriptures say so.

BTW, I was the one who first asked you a question, to which you replied with a question, instead of answering my question. Yet I answered your question. Now, can you answer my question? Here again:

​

​So, are you waiting for a literal dragon to emerge from the sea. This is a pertinent question to your question. This is apocalyptic genre, and if you dont read it accordingly, you will come up with some bizarre conclusions. Like statues coming alive and such

Edited June 6, 2015 by brotherly love

[Samie]

​So, are you waiting for a literal dragon to emerge from the sea. This is a pertinent question to your question. This is apocalyptic genre, and if you dont read it accordingly, you will come up with some bizarre conclusions. Like statues coming alive and such

​You were asking and I simply replied to your question whether beasts come up out of the sea with heads and horns. In the age of robotics, statues coming alive is not bizarre. John was shown one. You don't believe that the image of the beast can speak?

[brotherly love]

​You were asking and I simply replied to your question whether beasts come up out of the sea with heads and horns. In the age of robotics, statues coming alive is not bizarre. John was shown one. You don't believe that the image of the beast can speak?

​Lets take a look at the passage

¹⁵ The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.

If you dont understand apocalyptic literature, and read it in a wooden literal labrynth foreign to the genre, the problem will become very apparent. You would have to believe that the second beast has the power of life-to resurrect the dead. This is reserved for God. If Satan has the power to resurrect the dead, then he could have been the power behind the resurrection of Jesus to lead the Jews astray. Robots dont need resurrection from a fatal wound

Secondly, the text tells the original audience that they could understand the vision "with wisdom and insight"

⁸ This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man

How much wisdom and insight could a first century audience muster in order to understand a 21 century robotic beast? This is ripping the text out of the hands of the epistle it was written to

 

Edited June 6, 2015 by brotherly love

[hch]

Lets take a look at the passage

¹⁵ The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.

Brotherly Love,

It would be nice if you would be more specific. Helpful if the reference for the passage is cited. And if you do not use the KJV, mentioning the particular Bible cited would be nice. Thank you.

Rev 13:15  And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

[Samie]

Lets take a look at the passage

¹⁵ The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.

If you dont understand apocalyptic literature, and read it in a wooden literal labrynth foreign to the genre, the problem will become very apparent. You would have to believe that the second beast has the power of life-to resurrect the dead. This is reserved for God. If Satan has the power to resurrect the dead, then he could have been the power behind the resurrection of Jesus to lead the Jews astray. Robots dont need resurrection from a fatal wound

Secondly, the text tells the original audience that they could understand the vision "with wisdom and insight"

⁸ This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man

How much wisdom and insight could a first century audience muster in order to understand a 21 century robotic beast? This is ripping the text out of the hands of the epistle it was written to

There is nothing in the text that borders on what you call the power of life of the 2nd beast to resurrect the dead.  You don't resurrect a robot;  but you can make it speak.

Rev 13 is an end-time scenario and therefore understandable to end-time audiences but may NOT be so to the first century audiences. Verse 18 does not say all who read Rev 13 can understand it. In fact it only asks those with "insight" to do the calculation.

Again, I believe the image of the beast = the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.