Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linguistic Daniel 9:26 - Antichrist Doesn't Have to Be Roman?

    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. 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”.
    Last edited by Literalist-Luke; Oct 31st 2008, 04:50 AM.
    ----------------------------------------------
    When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

  • #2
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Lamplighter View Post
      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?
      ----------------------------------------------
      When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Literalist-Luke View Post
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Literalist-Luke View Post
          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. 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/

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Literalist-Luke View Post
            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. 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.

            Comment


            • #7
              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?
              Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held it's ground.
              ********************************************
              MAY WE IN EVIL'S HOUR, TRUTH'S SWORD WITH BOLDNESS WIELD

              Comment


              • #8
                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.
                Psalm 118:8 - "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Lamplighter View Post
                  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?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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
                    ----------------------------------------------
                    When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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 [is] 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 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?
                      To This Day

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Literalist-Luke View Post
                        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.
                        Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held it's ground.
                        ********************************************
                        MAY WE IN EVIL'S HOUR, TRUTH'S SWORD WITH BOLDNESS WIELD

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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?
                          ----------------------------------------------
                          When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.


                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by quiet dove View Post
                              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. Well, the fact that nobody's told me this translation is for the birds is a pretty good indicator about it as it is.
                              ----------------------------------------------
                              When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X