PDA

View Full Version : Linguistic Daniel 9:26 - Antichrist Doesn't Have to Be Roman?



Literalist-Luke
Oct 31st 2008, 03:14 AM
I had a friend share this with me a day or so ago and found it really intriguing. Unfortunately, my linguistic skills are far too weak to be able to really analyze this knowledgeably. I wonder if some of you language scholars here could give me your opinion of this.

(Do me a favor - those of you who read this and just reject it outright only because it's different than what you've heard before, please just go to another thread unless you have a linguistic reason for rejecting it. I'm only interested in a linguistic analysis of this little article. Only after I've found out if it's linguistically sound will it be apropos to discuss its theological implications. Thank you.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Daniel 9:26 is commonly translated as “the people of the ruler to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary” or something like that. (Sorry, I don’t have my Bible right in front of me as I’m typing this.) We know, of course, that Jerusalem was obliterated by the Romans in 70 AD, so most people take that to mean that the “ruler to come” will be a Roman. That has had me scratching my head for the last 18 months when I started discovering the multitudinous passages in the Old Testament that seem to be firmly speaking of Islam. How could there be so many passages that indicate Islam as the enemy at the 2nd Coming and yet Daniel indicating the final ruler would be “Roman”? Well, I found the explanation, thank you very much. Or rather, thank you Father.

The phrase the “people of the ruler who is to come” is not even the correct rendering.

A Strong’s Concordance will show that the KJV’s entire phrase, “but not for himself: and the people”, is represented in the original text by just one word, “עם”, which is transliterated as “`am” and which means “nation”, “people”, “kinsman”, or “kindred”. That’s not much to build on to develop the entire phrase, “but not for himself: and the people”. The next words after “עם” are “נגיד בוא שחת עיר קדש” or “nagiyd bow’ shachath ‘iyr qodesh”. Literally translated in English, this would read, “ruler enters to destroy city and holiness”.

In a literal translation we would find it rendered more accurately in this way:

Daniel 9:26 - “And after the sixty and two sevens, cut off is Messiah from His people, and the ruler who comes will destroy the city and its holiness; and its end is as a flood, and till the end is war, determined is desolation.”

That will probably make more sense if you read it as if Yoda from Star Wars is speaking, since it's kind of a rough wording. :D So what we have is a statement that after the first 69 “sevens”, Messiah will be cut off from His people, which is precisely what happened at the Crucifixion. Next, a ruler will come and will destroy the city (Jerusalem) and its holiness, and will commit “desolation” during a time of war. Jesus specifically told the Twelve in Matthew 24 that this occurrence was still future at the time of the Olivet Discourse and He also mentioned that it would be something that could be seen “standing” in the Most Holy Place, the deepest interior of the Temple. The Romans did not do this, they simply knocked the Temple down, so that event is still yet to occur. So there is no requirement for the Antichrist to be “Roman”.

Lamplighter
Oct 31st 2008, 03:46 AM
He just has to be from the Roman empire, and if you look at the greatest Roman emperor's(Alexander the Great) territory, it includes the Middle East. This is why the Antichrist is a man of the Muslim faith, from the Middle East. Did you know right now, all of Europe's Orthodox clergy is considering adopting Muslim Sharia law over the church? This is setting up perfectly for the Islamic Mahdi(the Antichrist) to return as prophesied in the Quran and Hadiths.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 31st 2008, 04:47 AM
He just has to be from the Roman empire, and if you look at the greatest Roman emperor's(Alexander the Great) territory, it includes the Middle East. This is why the Antichrist is a man of the Muslim faith, from the Middle East. Did you know right now, all of Europe's Orthodox clergy is considering adopting Muslim Sharia law over the church? This is setting up perfectly for the Islamic Mahdi(the Antichrist) to return as prophesied in the Quran and Hadiths.I did know that, thanks. :) It's pretty sobering, for certain. Do you have any opinion about whether my friend's suggested translation of Daniel 9:26 could be more accurate that the traditional one?

Lamplighter
Oct 31st 2008, 05:21 AM
I did know that, thanks. :) It's pretty sobering, for certain. Do you have any opinion about whether my friend's suggested translation of Daniel 9:26 could be more accurate that the traditional one?

His translation well could be.

When you study Islamic prophecy about their Imam messiah in the Quran and Hadiths, it lines up perfectly with Biblical prophecy about the Antichrist.

Only one religion on the planet has sworn to destroy the nation of Israel, and it's Islam. Only one religion on the planet has said that saying Christ is God is blasphemy, it's Islam's Surah 5:75. The Islam Hadiths say that the Islamic Mahdi will return on a white horse with a bow, sound familiar? Revelation says the same about the Antichrist. Islam demands that the laws of the World must change to reflect Islamic law. Guess what? In Daniel 7:25, he says the Antichrist will do the same. There are many other parallels between Islam's mahdi and the Antichrist, and we all know that nobody in Islam will follow a world leader unless that leader claims Islam as his religion.

Bick
Oct 31st 2008, 05:43 AM
I had a friend share this with me a day or so ago and found it really intriguing. Unfortunately, my linguistic skills are far too weak to be able to really analyze this knowledgeably. I wonder if some of you language scholars here could give me your opinion of this.

(Do me a favor - those of you who read this and just reject it outright only because it's different than what you've heard before, please just go to another thread unless you have a linguistic reason for rejecting it. I'm only interested in a linguistic analysis of this little article. Only after I've found out if it's linguistically sound will it be apropos to discuss its theological implications. Thank you.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Daniel 9:26 is commonly translated as “the people of the ruler to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary” or something like that. (Sorry, I don’t have my Bible right in front of me as I’m typing this.) We know, of course, that Jerusalem was obliterated by the Romans in 70 AD, so most people take that to mean that the “ruler to come” will be a Roman. That has had me scratching my head for the last 18 months when I started discovering the multitudinous passages in the Old Testament that seem to be firmly speaking of Islam. How could there be so many passages that indicate Islam as the enemy at the 2nd Coming and yet Daniel indicating the final ruler would be “Roman”? Well, I found the explanation, thank you very much. Or rather, thank you Father.

The phrase the “people of the ruler who is to come” is not even the correct rendering.

A Strong’s Concordance will show that the KJV’s entire phrase, “but not for himself: and the people”, is represented in the original text by just one word, “עם”, which is transliterated as “`am” and which means “nation”, “people”, “kinsman”, or “kindred”. That’s not much to build on to develop the entire phrase, “but not for himself: and the people”. The next words after “עם” are “נגיד בוא שחת עיר קדש” or “nagiyd bow’ shachath ‘iyr qodesh”. Literally translated in English, this would read, “ruler enters to destroy city and holiness”.

In a literal translation we would find it rendered more accurately in this way:

Daniel 9:26 - “And after the sixty and two sevens, cut off is Messiah from His people, and the ruler who comes will destroy the city and its holiness; and its end is as a flood, and till the end is war, determined is desolation.”

That will probably make more sense if you read it as if Yoda from Star Wars is speaking, since it's kind of a rough wording. :D So what we have is a statement that after the first 69 “sevens”, Messiah will be cut off from His people, which is precisely what happened at the Crucifixion. Next, a ruler will come and will destroy the city (Jerusalem) and its holiness, and will commit “desolation” during a time of war. Jesus specifically told the Twelve in Matthew 24 that this occurrence was still future at the time of the Olivet Discourse and He also mentioned that it would be something that could be seen “standing” in the Most Holy Place, the deepest interior of the Temple. The Romans did not do this, they simply knocked the Temple down, so that event is still yet to occur. So there is no requirement for the Antichrist to be “Roman”.


MY COMMENTS: I agree with you. The anti-christ is still in the future, and is not a Roman.
Personally, since he gains the confidence of Israel, it is possible that he is a Hebrew/

ross3421
Oct 31st 2008, 10:22 AM
I had a friend share this with me a day or so ago and found it really intriguing. Unfortunately, my linguistic skills are far too weak to be able to really analyze this knowledgeably. I wonder if some of you language scholars here could give me your opinion of this.

(Do me a favor - those of you who read this and just reject it outright only because it's different than what you've heard before, please just go to another thread unless you have a linguistic reason for rejecting it. I'm only interested in a linguistic analysis of this little article. Only after I've found out if it's linguistically sound will it be apropos to discuss its theological implications. Thank you.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Daniel 9:26 is commonly translated as “the people of the ruler to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary” or something like that. (Sorry, I don’t have my Bible right in front of me as I’m typing this.) We know, of course, that Jerusalem was obliterated by the Romans in 70 AD, so most people take that to mean that the “ruler to come” will be a Roman. That has had me scratching my head for the last 18 months when I started discovering the multitudinous passages in the Old Testament that seem to be firmly speaking of Islam. How could there be so many passages that indicate Islam as the enemy at the 2nd Coming and yet Daniel indicating the final ruler would be “Roman”? Well, I found the explanation, thank you very much. Or rather, thank you Father.

The phrase the “people of the ruler who is to come” is not even the correct rendering.

A Strong’s Concordance will show that the KJV’s entire phrase, “but not for himself: and the people”, is represented in the original text by just one word, “עם”, which is transliterated as “`am” and which means “nation”, “people”, “kinsman”, or “kindred”. That’s not much to build on to develop the entire phrase, “but not for himself: and the people”. The next words after “עם” are “נגיד בוא שחת עיר קדש” or “nagiyd bow’ shachath ‘iyr qodesh”. Literally translated in English, this would read, “ruler enters to destroy city and holiness”.

In a literal translation we would find it rendered more accurately in this way:

Daniel 9:26 - “And after the sixty and two sevens, cut off is Messiah from His people, and the ruler who comes will destroy the city and its holiness; and its end is as a flood, and till the end is war, determined is desolation.”

That will probably make more sense if you read it as if Yoda from Star Wars is speaking, since it's kind of a rough wording. :D So what we have is a statement that after the first 69 “sevens”, Messiah will be cut off from His people, which is precisely what happened at the Crucifixion. Next, a ruler will come and will destroy the city (Jerusalem) and its holiness, and will commit “desolation” during a time of war. Jesus specifically told the Twelve in Matthew 24 that this occurrence was still future at the time of the Olivet Discourse and He also mentioned that it would be something that could be seen “standing” in the Most Holy Place, the deepest interior of the Temple. The Romans did not do this, they simply knocked the Temple down, so that event is still yet to occur. So there is no requirement for the Antichrist to be “Roman”.

The ruler who is to come IS the Messiah. Yes he will destroy the city (Babylon) and the sanctuary due to the abominations. Would this Roman ruler destroy his own city do to his own abominations?

Messiah = people of the prince

Da 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

TexasBeliever
Oct 31st 2008, 01:45 PM
Perhaps antichrist will have a Jewish mother and an Arab father AND will have been born in Rome, making him a citizen of Rome and someone both Jews and Arabs will embrace?

jesuslover1968
Oct 31st 2008, 01:52 PM
The Anti-Christ just has to have Roman ancestory. That means he could be from anywhere, or any faith. We, as America, are the smelting pot. It could be someone in our own families...
As for him being a Jew...I don't know about that. There are people who have gained the trust of the Israelies that are not Jews, but I understand where that idea is coming from.

As an afterthought, I wonder how many people will end up being deceived by the ac if he comes from somewhere other than Rome and they think they are safe...a very sobering thought.

thepenitent
Oct 31st 2008, 02:21 PM
He just has to be from the Roman empire, and if you look at the greatest Roman emperor's(Alexander the Great) territory, it includes the Middle East. This is why the Antichrist is a man of the Muslim faith, from the Middle East. Did you know right now, all of Europe's Orthodox clergy is considering adopting Muslim Sharia law over the church? This is setting up perfectly for the Islamic Mahdi(the Antichrist) to return as prophesied in the Quran and Hadiths.

What does Alexander the Great have to do with the Roman empire?

Literalist-Luke
Oct 31st 2008, 04:04 PM
OK guys, I appreciate all the speculation about whether or not the Antichrist would have to be Roman, but I want to know if the translation could be accurate.

Talk to me about this: “נגיד בוא שחת עיר קדש”

markedward
Oct 31st 2008, 05:47 PM
Lamplighter: Alexander the Great was a Macedonian... and he was the leader of the Greeks. Not the Romans. There wasn't even a series of emperors for Alexander to be "the greatest" of, since he was the founder of his empire, and it fell apart when he died. He lived at least two or three centuries before the Roman Empire even formed.

While we're on the topic of alternate translations of this particular verse, examine Young's Literal Translation's version of it:

Daniel 9:26 And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his, the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end with a flood, and till the end [is] war, determined [are] desolations.

In this version, our translator is one of the few who takes notice that in verse 25, the Christ-figure is called "Messiah, the Leader" (or "prince" or "ruler" depending on your translation). Meaning, the Christ-figure is called both "Messiah" and "the Leader". Following into verse 26, "Messiah" is cut off, and "the Leader who has come" destroys the people (as opposed to "people of the Leader" doing the destroying). Up to this point in the text, who are we told is "the Leader who has come"? The [I]Messiah.

The text directly and explicitly calls our Christ-figure here both "Messiah" and "the Leader"... so why do people assume "the Leader" (ruler/prince/etc.) of verse 26 (or even the "he" of verse 27) is a different individual from "Messiah" when the text outright says they're the same individual?

TexasBeliever
Oct 31st 2008, 09:30 PM
OK guys, I appreciate all the speculation about whether or not the Antichrist would have to be Roman, but I want to know if the translation could be accurate.

Talk to me about this: “נגיד בוא שחת עיר קדש”

To me, according to what you have written, it sounds like his origin was not mentioned. You almost have to believe that the AC will be someone who the followers of Islam can accept and also the Jews. For the Jews, that would mean he would have to be Jewish, as the Messiah is of the Jews.
I think I read somewhere once that in order for someone to be considered Jewish, only their mother has to be Jewish. This would mean that the father could be Arab.
If this is so, then the only other piece of the puzzle is that he will somehow be connected to the landmass that ruled the world in Jesus time, which was the Roman Empire, which contained many countries besides Rome; connected either by being born there or just in a postion of political power.

Somehow, this guy is going to fulfill scripture perfectly AND be all things to all people. We may just not understand it fully until he appears.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 31st 2008, 09:48 PM
OK, so far nobody has said anything about whether or not this one word, “עם” is sufficient to justify the entire English phrase, “but not for himself: and the people”.

If nobody is going to dispute it, then I guess I have to take that to mean that everybody is accepting the newly suggested translation as legitimate.

I know what the theological implications are, believe me. As much studying as I've done regarding the Antichrist's potentially Islamic origins, you'll have a hard time finding anybody that understands the theological ramifications better. That's not what I'm concerned about, however. I don't want to take this ball and run with it until I'm certain that it'll hold air, so to speak.

Now, is this one word, “עם” sufficient to justify the entire English phrase, “but not for himself: and the people”? Yes or no? And why?

quiet dove
Oct 31st 2008, 10:00 PM
nope, it means that we are not linguistics or however you spell it. I have seen person after person give input on the original language, same as English, just depends on who you ask.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 31st 2008, 11:45 PM
nope, it means that we are not linguistics or however you spell it. I have seen person after person give input on the original language, same as English, just depends on who you ask.Fair enough. :D Well, the fact that nobody's told me this translation is for the birds is a pretty good indicator about it as it is. :thumbsup:

quiet dove
Nov 1st 2008, 12:48 AM
When most of us cannot read Hebrew, it isn't really making a statement either way. I guess my question would be is why should I trust this one persons translation over the other explanations I have read, not to mention the many scholars who put their efforts into translating it the way it is in most Bibles?

Literalist-Luke
Nov 1st 2008, 01:04 AM
When most of us cannot read Hebrew, it isn't really making a statement either way. I guess my question would be is why should I trust this one persons translation over the other explanations I have read, not to mention the many scholars who put their efforts into translating it the way it is in most Bibles?That's really hard to answer, because there are various translations that go both ways. For instance, "Young's Literal Translation" reads like this:

Daniel 9:26 - "And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his, the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end [is] with a flood, and till the end [is] war, determined [are] desolations."

which is pretty close to the translation suggested in the OP. I guess what it comes down to is why just one Hebrew word, “עם”, is sufficient to render an entire phrase, “but not for himself: and the people”.

If nobody has been able to offer any reasons to the contrary, which I recognize is mostly lay people's opinions, I can only take that to mean that the newer translation could be considered acceptable, if not better.

The implications, for those of us who are following the idea of the Mahdi being the Antichrist, are huge. This makes the issue of the Antichrist being of Roman origin a complete non-issue. There is now no more need to connect the Antichrist with those who destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem. So we can now focus attention completely on the passages where he is specified to be an "Assyrian", which would totally go along with the Antichrist claiming to be Islam's Mahdi.

Actually, you know what I think I'm going to do? There's a Messianic Jew named Arnold Fruchtenbaum that I've known of for a long time and have great respect for, even though I differ with him a couple of issues. If I remember right, he can speak Hebrew fluently. I think I'll email this to him and get his opinion. If and when I hear back from him, I'll share it here.

quiet dove
Nov 1st 2008, 01:29 AM
That's really hard to answer, because there are various translations that go both ways. For instance, "Young's Literal Translation" reads like this:

Daniel 9:26 - "And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his, the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end [is] with a flood, and till the end [is] war, determined [are] desolations."

which is pretty close to the translation suggested in the OP. I guess what it comes down to is why just one Hebrew word, “עם”, is sufficient to render an entire phrase, “but not for himself: and the people”.

If nobody has been able to offer any reasons to the contrary, which I recognize is mostly lay people's opinions, I can only take that to mean that the newer translation could be considered acceptable, if not better.

The implications, for those of us who are following the idea of the Mahdi being the Antichrist, are huge. This makes the issue of the Antichrist being of Roman origin a complete non-issue. There is now no more need to connect the Antichrist with those who destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem. So we can now focus attention completely on the passages where he is specified to be an "Assyrian", which would totally go along with the Antichrist claiming to be Islam's Mahdi.

Actually, you know what I think I'm going to do? There's a Messianic Jew named Arnold Fruchtenbaum that I've known of for a long time and have great respect for, even though I differ with him a couple of issues. If I remember right, he can speak Hebrew fluently. I think I'll email this to him and get his opinion. If and when I hear back from him, I'll share it here.

I have heard the name before. And I am not arguing just asking. It is frustrating, goes to show what a lack of Bible in the schools has done for us, neither of us knows Hebrew or Greek.

quiet dove
Nov 1st 2008, 01:37 AM
I found this but have not read all of it yet



The Events Between the 69th Seven and the 70th Seven—Daniel 9:26
Whereas the second subdivision of the 70 sevens was to immediately follow the first, the third subdivision was not immediately to follow the second. Daniel pointed out (in verse 26) that three things would occur after this second subdivision and before the third one.
Stepping back in time and looking ahead from Daniel's perspective in verse 26, we see first that "the Messiah shall be cut off and shall have nothing." The Hebrew word translated "cut off" is the common word used in the Mosaic Law and simply means "to be killed." The implication of the term is that the Messiah would not only be killed, but he would die a penal death by execution. The Hebrew expression translated "and shall have nothing" has two meanings. It may mean "nothingness," emphasizing Messiah's state at death. It can also be translated "but not for himself," and the meaning would then be that he died for others rather than for himself, a substitutionary death. The latter meaning would be much more consistent with what the Prophets had to say about the reason for Messiah's death (e.g. Isaiah 53:1-12). The first three purposes of the 70 sevens—to finish transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity—have to be accomplished by an atonement. The Law of Moses decreed that atonement is made by blood (Leviticus 17:11). It appears that Messiah's death "not for himself" but for others would be the means by which Israel's transgression, sins and iniquity would be atoned for. The point of this phrase is that between the end of the second subdivision (the 69th seven) and before the start of the 70th seven, Messiah would be killed and would die a penal, substitutionary death.
Secondly, during this interim period it would also happen that "the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood.…" The city and the temple that were to be rebuilt because of the decree by which the 70 sevens began would now be destroyed. So sometime after the Messiah was cut off, Jerusalem and the temple would suffer another destruction. Our knowledge of history during this period is extremely clear: the people responsible for this deed were the Romans, and Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in year 70 C. E. Based upon this verse, it is also clear that the Messiah should have both come and died prior to the year 70 C.E. If such an event did not take place, then Daniel was a false prophet. If such an event did occur, then the question must be answered, who was that Messiah who was killed before 70 C.E.?
The third thing to take note of would be, "and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined." For the remainder of the interval between the 69th seven and the 70th seven, the land would be characterized by war, and its resulting condition would be desolation. All this would set the stage for the final, or 70th, seven.

JewsforJesus (http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/5_1/timetable)



Doesn't look like he elaborates on the word you brought up though. Not in this article anyway.

If you google him you should find more information and his writing

Literalist-Luke
Nov 1st 2008, 01:39 AM
I have heard the name before. And I am not arguing just asking. It is frustrating, goes to show what a lack of Bible in the schools has done for us, neither of us knows Hebrew or Greek.No argument here.

Dr. Fruchtenbaum is a Jew who was being trained as a Rabbi when he found Jesus. So he brings to the Bible all the tradition and insight that you would expect of such a person. (Just imagine Fenris if he were to be saved and with a doctorate from seminary on top of that.) Dr. Fruchtenbaum has written several books, among which The Footsteps of the Messiah is often considered one of the most influential books on prophecy ever written.

For me personally, The Footsteps of the Messiah completely revolutionized my entire approach to the Bible. Before reading that book, there were large parts of the Bible that I needed other people's opinions on before being able to understand them. After reading that book, the vast majority of the Bible suddenly made total sense, because Dr. Fruchtenbaum taught me how to let the Bible interpret itself. That's actually the main reason why my signature statement below says what it does. He taught me that.

He runs a ministry, Ariel Ministries, which is located in California and is specifically for witnessing to Jews to bring them to Yeshua and to find their Messiah in Him. He organizes guided trips to Israel almost every year and maintains a year-round international speaking schedule.

So this guy's opinion ought to be worth hearing, to put it mildly. :D I've written him twice before and both times he was kind enough to answer, so hopefully he'll answer this time as well.

By the way, I emailed him about five minutes ago as I'm typing this. When I hear back from him, I'll be sure and share it here.

(Oh, and you might also find it interesting that he's considered one of the most prominent Pre-Trib scholars in the world - he and Tim LaHaye are very well acquainted with each other.)

Literalist-Luke
Nov 1st 2008, 01:42 AM
Doesn't look like he elaborates on the word you brought up though. Not in this article anyway.Yeah, that's still discussing only the theological implications of Daniel 9:26. What's going to have to happen here is for a definitive answer to be arrived at over whether or not the translation we have is even accurate. Or rather, which translation is accurate.

Once that question has been answered, then the theological implications shouldn't be too hard to figure out. :)

Back2Front
Nov 1st 2008, 01:45 AM
When most of us cannot read Hebrew, it isn't really making a statement either way. I guess my question would be is why should I trust this one persons translation over the other explanations I have read, not to mention the many scholars who put their efforts into translating it the way it is in most Bibles?

(Above bold emphasis is mine.)

Deuteronomy 6:4-9
2 Timothy 4:3-4
Matthew 5:17-20
Matthew 23:8-12 (directed at those current translators you mention currently in print)

In a nutshell, I guess the goal, through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, would be to become the scholar. This would be in lieu of relying on, and putting faith in those who proclaim to be such.

Why should you trust any persons translation, including the ones you read in your bible and hear from a pulpit. The Holy Spirit speaking to me as I read Gods word is what I struggle to hear and understand? That said, it's the only place I dedicate my focus.

As a side note I don't trust any translation. Understanding original text is where it's at for me. And yes... It's a long grueling process that goes well beyond printed word and foreign languages. It also includes the study of culture so as to better understand context of what is written.

Talk about eyes being opened to truth and lie being exposed. For me true faith in God offers true freedom. Imagine never having to seek another's approval, needing to ask for another's prayers, or relying on another to teach and lead you. Flipped, imagine a life only concerned of what God thinks, trusting in faith that your prayers are sufficient, and clearly hearing what the Holy Spirit is saying to you through his word without needing to elicit flesh in the form of Translators, Pastors, Priests, Rabbis, or the like.

My :2cents:

Literalist-Luke
Nov 1st 2008, 01:48 AM
(Above bold emphasis is mine.)

Deuteronomy 6:4-9
2 Timothy 4:3-4
Matthew 5:17-20
Matthew 23:8-12 (directed at those current translators you mention currently in print)

In a nutshell, I guess the goal, through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, would be to become the scholar. This would be in lieu of relying on, and putting faith in those who proclaim to be such.

Why should you trust any persons translation, including the ones you read in your bible and hear from a pulpit. The Holy Spirit speaking to me as I read Gods word is what I struggle to hear and understand? That said, it's the only place I dedicate my focus.

As a side note I don't trust any translation. Understanding original text is where it's at for me. And yes... It's a long grueling process that goes well beyond printed word and foreign languages. It also includes the study of culture so as to better understand context of what is written.

Talk about eyes being opened to truth and lie being exposed. For me true faith in God offers true freedom. Imagine never having to seek another's approval, needing to ask for another's prayers, or relying on another to teach and lead you. Flipped, imagine a life only concerned of what God thinks, trusting in faith that your prayers are sufficient, and clearly hearing what the Holy Spirit is saying to you through his word without needing to elicit flesh in the form of Translators, Pastors, Priests, Rabbis, or the like.

My :2cents:So then, what do you have to say about Daniel 9:26?

quiet dove
Nov 1st 2008, 01:49 AM
No argument here.

Dr. Fruchtenbaum is a Jew who was being trained as a Rabbi when he found Jesus. So he brings to the Bible all the tradition and insight that you would expect of such a person. (Just imagine Fenris if he were to be saved and with a doctorate from seminary on top of that.) Dr. Fruchtenbaum has written several books, among which The Footsteps of the Messiah is often considered one of the most influential books on prophecy ever written.

For me personally, The Footsteps of the Messiah completely revolutionized my entire approach to the Bible. Before reading that book, there were large parts of the Bible that I needed other people's opinions on before being able to understand them. After reading that book, the vast majority of the Bible suddenly made total sense, because Dr. Fruchtenbaum taught me how to let the Bible interpret itself. That's actually the main reason why my signature statement below says what it does. He taught me that.

He runs a ministry, Ariel Ministries, which is located in California and is specifically for witnessing to Jews to bring them to Yeshua and to find their Messiah in Him. He organizes guided trips to Israel almost every year and maintains a year-round international speaking schedule.

So this guy's opinion ought to be worth hearing, to put it mildly. :D I've written him twice before and both times he was kind enough to answer, so hopefully he'll answer this time as well.

By the way, I emailed him about five minutes ago as I'm typing this. When I hear back from him, I'll be sure and share it here.

(Oh, and you might also find it interesting that he's considered one of the most prominent Pre-Trib scholars in the world - he and Tim LaHaye are very well acquainted with each other.)

Sounds like a good book. And I hope he answers your email so you can share it, I would like to know his response.

quiet dove
Nov 1st 2008, 01:57 AM
So then, what do you have to say about Daniel 9:26?

Thats what I was asking.

Back2Front
Nov 1st 2008, 01:59 AM
I will take the time to translate the Hebrew. It will take a few moments. about 10 minutes or so.

Watch shortly for my post

quiet dove
Nov 1st 2008, 02:00 AM
(Above bold emphasis is mine.)

Deuteronomy 6:4-9
2 Timothy 4:3-4
Matthew 5:17-20
Matthew 23:8-12 (directed at those current translators you mention currently in print)

In a nutshell, I guess the goal, through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, would be to become the scholar. This would be in lieu of relying on, and putting faith in those who proclaim to be such.

Why should you trust any persons translation, including the ones you read in your bible and hear from a pulpit. The Holy Spirit speaking to me as I read Gods word is what I struggle to hear and understand? That said, it's the only place I dedicate my focus.

As a side note I don't trust any translation. Understanding original text is where it's at for me. And yes... It's a long grueling process that goes well beyond printed word and foreign languages. It also includes the study of culture so as to better understand context of what is written.

Talk about eyes being opened to truth and lie being exposed. For me true faith in God offers true freedom. Imagine never having to seek another's approval, needing to ask for another's prayers, or relying on another to teach and lead you. Flipped, imagine a life only concerned of what God thinks, trusting in faith that your prayers are sufficient, and clearly hearing what the Holy Spirit is saying to you through his word without needing to elicit flesh in the form of Translators, Pastors, Priests, Rabbis, or the like.

My :2cents:

I don't feel guilty about having teachers as it is Biblical to have teachers.

God will provide the truth be it me knowing Hebrew or Him sending me a teacher that does. He will also, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit enable me to know true from false. And even if/when a good teacher is mistaken. And of course hopefull I will clearly hear and see when I am mistaken.

quiet dove
Nov 1st 2008, 02:02 AM
I will take the time to translate the Hebrew. It will take a few moments. about 10 minutes or so.

Watch shortly for my post

QD and LL waiting patiently - :)

Literalist-Luke
Nov 1st 2008, 02:06 AM
Sounds like a good book. And I hope he answers your email so you can share it, I would like to know his response.Oh, you would absolutely love The Footsteps of the Messiah, especially since it gives the most thoughtful defense of Pre-Trib that I've ever seen in my entire life. That's only a very small part of the book,however. What he does is, he takes all the events of Biblical prophecy and attempts to arrange them in order of fulfillment. He also has several appendices where he discusses such things as the origin, career, and final destiny of Satan, a complete synthesized analysis of all three combined parts of the Olivet Discourse (from a Pre-Trib point of view, of course), plus he also gives the most detailed description of the Millennial Kingdom that I've ever seen in any book other than the Bible itself.

I can almost guarantee you that you'll never see the Bible the same way again as long as you live if you read that book. I don't agree with his analysis of Gog/Magog or the Rapture, yet I'll still admit to being greatly influenced by him.

Back2Front
Nov 1st 2008, 02:07 AM
each set of english words where three spaces seperate represents one Hebrew word. The Hebrew word translates into small sentences if you will. So below is how it would be directly translated.


and-after the-sevens sixty and-two he-will-be-cut-off anointed-one and-there-will-be-nothing to-him and-the-city and-the-sanctuary he-will-destroy people-of ruler the-one-coming and-end-of-him like-the-flood until-to end war being-decreed ones-being-desolate

Back2Front
Nov 1st 2008, 02:10 AM
it didnt recognize my 3 spaces.

:hmm:


well... then let the dashes identify the Hebrew word

Sorry I thought the 3 spaces I put between each one would be recognized.

quiet dove
Nov 1st 2008, 02:11 AM
Oh, you would absolutely love The Footsteps of the Messiah, especially since it gives the most thoughtful defense of Pre-Trib that I've ever seen in my entire life. That's only a very small part of the book,however. What he does is, he takes all the events of Biblical prophecy and attempts to arrange them in order of fulfillment. He also has several appendices where he discusses such things as the origin, career, and final destiny of Satan, a complete synthesized analysis of all three combined parts of the Olivet Discourse (from a Pre-Trib point of view, of course), plus he also gives the most detailed description of the Millennial Kingdom that I've ever seen in any book other than the Bible itself.

I can almost guarantee you that you'll never see the Bible the same way again as long as you live if you read that book. I don't agree with his analysis of Gog/Magog or the Rapture, yet I'll still admit to being greatly influenced by him.

Oh, your torturing me here!

quiet dove
Nov 1st 2008, 02:15 AM
each set of english words where three spaces seperate represents one Hebrew word. The Hebrew word translates into small sentences if you will. So below is how it would be directly translated.


and-after the-sevens sixty and-two he-will-be-cut-off anointed-one and-there-will-be-nothing to-him and-the-city and-the-sanctuary he-will-destroy people-of ruler the-one-coming and-end-of-him like-the-flood until-to end war being-decreed ones-being-desolate

What of the passage is the "word?" in Ll's post? Sorry, I'm slow. God knows that though so it's ok.

Maybe color code, different color for each Hebrew word?

Literalist-Luke
Nov 1st 2008, 02:18 AM
Here is Blue Letter Bible's breakdown of Daniel 9:26 -

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/Daniel9-26.jpg

Literalist-Luke
Nov 1st 2008, 02:20 AM
Oh, your torturing me here!The last time I checked, they had it on Amazon, why not get it?

Back2Front
Nov 1st 2008, 02:23 AM
"and-after" is one Hebrew word. Just like "and-end-of-him" would be.

Any mini sentence that contains dashes represents one Hebrew word.

The interesting thing is that the word for "like-the-flood" refers to the flood in the Noahtic covenant.

Hope this helps

Literalist-Luke
Nov 1st 2008, 02:25 AM
each set of english words where three spaces seperate represents one Hebrew word. The Hebrew word translates into small sentences if you will. So below is how it would be directly translated.


and-after the-sevens sixty and-two he-will-be-cut-off anointed-one and-there-will-be-nothing to-him and-the-city and-the-sanctuary he-will-destroy people-of ruler the-one-coming and-end-of-him like-the-flood until-to end war being-decreed ones-being-desolateWait, you've got 21 groupings in there, yet Blue Letter Bible only shows 18 Hebrew words. What's the deal?

Literalist-Luke
Nov 1st 2008, 02:28 AM
What of the passage is the "word?" in Ll's post? Sorry, I'm slow. God knows that though so it's ok.

Maybe color code, different color for each Hebrew word?The word "'am" that I've been scrutinizing is the seventh word in the Hebrew, and the seventh word in Back2Front's version would be "and-there-will-be-nothing", although I need a clarification about a discrepancy in the number of words....

Back2Front
Nov 1st 2008, 02:40 AM
Wait, you've got 21 groupings in there, yet Blue Letter Bible only shows 18 Hebrew words. What's the deal?

LOL

Good luck. It should make you wonder who is writing and rewriting even the supposed original.

My translation is from the BHS. I'm not sure where blue letter is from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblia_Hebraica_Stuttgartensia

Back2Front
Nov 1st 2008, 02:50 AM
ha

In the blue letter you have to start in the upper rightand read down right to left.

;)

Literalist-Luke
Nov 1st 2008, 04:01 AM
ha

In the blue letter you have to start in the upper rightand read down right to left.

;)In addition, I think the individual "word" breakdowns might be combining some "words" together as well which would explain the discrepancy. I appreciate you sharing that, I'll be pouring over it for a while.....