Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 150

Thread: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Here is an article on the matter of *tense* in the Hebrew language, which may reflect on the Aramaic, as well.
    (My brother sent this to me from a book by C.L. Seow):

    Uses of the Perfect
    Biblical Hebrew does not have tenses in the strict sense of the word. Time of occurrence is indicated in context by certain adverbs (time words) and, as we shall see in later lessons, by the way a the sentence is constructed. The finite verbs themselves do not indicate tense, but aspect -- that is, whether the situation is viewed by the speaker/writer as an outsider looking at a situation as a complete whole ("perfect"), or as an insider looking at a situation as it develops ("imperfect"). For example, a narrator recounting a battle may depict the event from the perspective of an outsider who knows the entire situation from beginning to end. If so, the narrator would ideally use verbs in the perfect. A participant in the battle, on the other hand, would probably use verbs in the imperfect, as would a narrator, if that narrator attempts to describe the events as if he or she were personally present when the events unfolded.

    The Uses of the Imperfect.
    As we have learned in Lesson XIII, Hebrew verbs by themselves do not indicate tense. Rather, they indicate how a situation is viewed by the speaker/writer. In the perfect, the speaker/writer is an outsider considering the situation as a whole, with the beginning and the end both in view. In the imperfect, the speaker/writer views a situation from the inside, making explicit reference to the internal temporal structure of the situation, without explicit reference to the beginning or the end. In most instances, the imperfect in isolation may simply be rendered by the English future.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,950
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I need no links brother. I already recognize we're dealing with the imperfect tense--a *future* tense. That is not even in question. The question was, how are those who are familiar with Aramaic suggesting this could be said if the 1st in the future group already existed? The only way I can conceive of would be if the group were *not* looked at as a group, which of course defeats the whole purpose. It is easier, then, simply to state the whole group as future, even though the 1st entity is not future.
    You may not need links, but I also recognise others may need to check.
    Why WOULD you say it? You are creating a presupposition.
    Think about how you might put it in English.
    In English you would say there ARE 4 kingdoms (because the SET ALREADY exists). However why do you make them a SET? There is NOTHING which demands they are a set, in fact the 4th beast is different to the other 3. The ONLY way to consider them a "set" is because they are kingdoms. The CONSTRUCT of a set is actually a FALSE construct.
    It is a lot easier to simply follow what is stated, and this is that ALL 4 are future. To claim otherwise is to actually change the meaning WITHOUT it being so said.

    You could *not* use the past form for them as a group for the same reason you think they cannot use the future form for the whole group. They simply are not all future, nor all past. One exists, and the rest are future.
    Actually you can as according to you the "set" ALREADY exists. You see IF the language is about the GROUP (or set) as a whole then you use the tense related to the group as a whole, which in your idea would be either the past or the present. Neither the past or the present was used, therefore if it is as a group then the future means the ENTIRE group is future.

    I have a club. I am the founding member. You will join as will others. You individually are noted in the future, but the club is noted in the present (or if I founded it a year ago, then could be noted in the past). In Dan 7 though it is

    Yes, I did know that there are several interpretations. Some see the 1st as Cyrus, as I indicated. You would not for the very same reason that you reject Babylon as the 1st Kingdom in Dan 7. You are using the same argument, which prohibits me from giving you a similar use of this language elsewhere. I'm therefore unable to show you how this kind of language can work as an example!
    Actually no, I am not using the SAME argument. The ONLY reason to claim that Dan 7:17 is about an existing one being included in a future group, is to claim that Dan 11:2 shows this.
    However ENTIRELY separate to the discussion about the verb form of Dan 11:2 we have a historical reality AND the statement by the person who claims this.
    Gill agrees it is Xerxes who is the 4th king. So it is simple to see how many kings are future from Dan 11:2 statement.
    Dan 11:1* Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.*

    So Darius the Mede is King.
    Now, he is believed to reign as a sub-king of Cyrus. Cyrus was certainly ALREADY King of Persia at this time.

    Dan 11:2* “And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them.
    So the 4th is Xerxes
    There are three other kings that SHALL arise. So did history have THREE kings arise in Persia AFTER Cyrus but BEFORE Xerxes? If the answer is no, then you would have an example which has Daniel including an existing king in a future group.
    Well after Cyrus, the next OFFICIAL King - who was crowned and ruled was Cambyses (also called Artaxerxes by Ezra - note Ezra 4:7).
    The next OFFICIAL King - who was crowned was called Bardiya (also called Ahaseurus by Ezra - note Ezra 4:6)
    The next OFFICIAL King - who was crowned was called Darius (note Ezra 4:24)

    We have three kings in between Cyrus and Xerxes according to Ezra. We also have THREE kings noted between these two from other historical sources.
    This means that Daniel had a prophecy which did NOT include Cyrus in the future group, and means that Dan 11:2 does NOT support the claim made.
    What Gill is forced to do is to claim that Badiya wasn't really a king, in order to try to make Dan 11:2 show what is needed for Dan 7:17.

    I don't think it's the best argument either. It's just that both my brother and I came up with this thought independent of one another. The angel is portraying something from the vantage point of eternity, and revealing these 4 kingdoms arising from the earth. The futurity of them all is obviously a reality if it is a foretold event!
    You may have had the idea because you need something which will try to explain the issue, WITHOUT accepting that the simple usage is correct.

    I don't particularly like this argument either, but it does strike me that the then-current kingdom would be addressed as part of a future sequence. It certainly was in Dan 2, and likely would be as well in Dan 7.
    Why would an existing kingdom, which even has its ruler elsewhere, and which is soon to end, with Belshazzar ignoring Daniel and to be the LAST ruler of the kingdom? I could just about accept it as a possibility IF Babylon were to have had another ruler who regained some of its splendour or glory as a kingdom. Yet all the information about Babylon from this point in time is that of a kingdom which is falling.

    What has been shown is that *you* find it to be faulty. You have certainly not proven the scholar's logic faulty!
    All scholars should be peer reviewed. I have shown through peer review that Gill's logic is faulty.
    I have shown this in TWO ways:
    1) The language used is NOT meaning an existing kingdom.
    2) The example given also fails as there are three future kings AFTER Cyrus and BEFORE Xerxes.

    I believe that you're hanging your interpretation of an otherwise obvious prophecy on an idiosyncrasy in the Aramaic language. Since you are not a scholar in that language, I think you should exercise caution, and not make overwhelming claims that appear *to you* to be logical, but not logical to actual scholars.
    If by obvious you mean, a widely accepted view, then that is one thing. However there is NOTHING idiosyncratic about Aramiac or any other language where you use the future tense to speak of a future kingdom (or group of kingdoms). You don't need to be a great scholar to KNOW that the future tense is used to speak of future things. Further ALL the "great" scholars, who have been involved in translating that particular passage ALL AGREE that it is a FUTURE tense and NOT the present. This means it is NOT about MY personal knowledge, but that of those involved in translation. I am a language scholar, just not an Aramaic specialist. I would have thought how often we argue about terms should give you a clue about this - but then you don't like to accept what I state about words and how they work, so perhaps this isn't surprising.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,950
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Here is an article on the matter of *tense* in the Hebrew language, which may reflect on the Aramaic, as well.
    (My brother sent this to me from a book by C.L. Seow):

    Uses of the Perfect
    Biblical Hebrew does not have tenses in the strict sense of the word. Time of occurrence is indicated in context by certain adverbs (time words) and, as we shall see in later lessons, by the way a the sentence is constructed. The finite verbs themselves do not indicate tense, but aspect -- that is, whether the situation is viewed by the speaker/writer as an outsider looking at a situation as a complete whole ("perfect"), or as an insider looking at a situation as it develops ("imperfect"). For example, a narrator recounting a battle may depict the event from the perspective of an outsider who knows the entire situation from beginning to end. If so, the narrator would ideally use verbs in the perfect. A participant in the battle, on the other hand, would probably use verbs in the imperfect, as would a narrator, if that narrator attempts to describe the events as if he or she were personally present when the events unfolded.

    The Uses of the Imperfect.
    As we have learned in Lesson XIII, Hebrew verbs by themselves do not indicate tense. Rather, they indicate how a situation is viewed by the speaker/writer. In the perfect, the speaker/writer is an outsider considering the situation as a whole, with the beginning and the end both in view. In the imperfect, the speaker/writer views a situation from the inside, making explicit reference to the internal temporal structure of the situation, without explicit reference to the beginning or the end. In most instances, the imperfect in isolation may simply be rendered by the English future.
    If you would have followed my links then you would have read all this already, and noted how this works. Hebrew and Aramaic follow roughly the same forms.
    The final sentence helps to clarify though that the imperfect is simply rendered in the future because that is the SENSE of the situation (IOW its meaning).

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    You may not need links, but I also recognise others may need to check.
    Why WOULD you say it? You are creating a presupposition.
    Think about how you might put it in English.
    In English you would say there ARE 4 kingdoms (because the SET ALREADY exists). However why do you make them a SET? There is NOTHING which demands they are a set, in fact the 4th beast is different to the other 3. The ONLY way to consider them a "set" is because they are kingdoms. The CONSTRUCT of a set is actually a FALSE construct.
    It is a lot easier to simply follow what is stated, and this is that ALL 4 are future. To claim otherwise is to actually change the meaning WITHOUT it being so said.
    I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder. I see the 4 as a set if for no other reason than they are presented together as a series. You may not view it that way. That does not give you a claim to infallibility in your proclamation that this is a "false construct." That is merely your opinion.

    The 4 kingdoms are being treated together. They are in fact mentioned as a *set.* Here in ch. 7 we see them as 4 beasts. But in ch. 2 we see what I believe to be the same kingdoms viewed as a single image.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually you can as according to you the "set" ALREADY exists. You see IF the language is about the GROUP (or set) as a whole then you use the tense related to the group as a whole, which in your idea would be either the past or the present. Neither the past or the present was used, therefore if it is as a group then the future means the ENTIRE group is future.
    In the lesson I provided on the Hebrew "tense," it was shown that *aspect* is critical, while "tense" is not part of the verb at all. The imperfect tense then would be viewed not just as future but as one actually experiencing the event. In this sense, it could not be in the past, but could instead be partly past and partly future.

    For example, if Daniel had written this down this dream after the fact, it would've all had a past tense--the event would've been completed, or "perfect." But Daniel was in the "aspect" of actually experiencing this in the present. It was an uncompleted event, and as such, was a future tense, or "imperfect." This is not to say the entire event was future, but that it simply was not yet complete.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I have a club. I am the founding member. You will join as will others. You individually are noted in the future, but the club is noted in the present (or if I founded it a year ago, then could be noted in the past). In Dan 7 though it is


    Actually no, I am not using the SAME argument. The ONLY reason to claim that Dan 7:17 is about an existing one being included in a future group, is to claim that Dan 11:2 shows this.
    However ENTIRELY separate to the discussion about the verb form of Dan 11:2 we have a historical reality AND the statement by the person who claims this.
    Gill agrees it is Xerxes who is the 4th king. So it is simple to see how many kings are future from Dan 11:2 statement.
    Dan 11:1* Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.*

    So Darius the Mede is King.
    Now, he is believed to reign as a sub-king of Cyrus. Cyrus was certainly ALREADY King of Persia at this time.

    Dan 11:2* “And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them.
    So the 4th is Xerxes
    There are three other kings that SHALL arise. So did history have THREE kings arise in Persia AFTER Cyrus but BEFORE Xerxes? If the answer is no, then you would have an example which has Daniel including an existing king in a future group.
    Well after Cyrus, the next OFFICIAL King - who was crowned and ruled was Cambyses (also called Artaxerxes by Ezra - note Ezra 4:7).
    The next OFFICIAL King - who was crowned was called Bardiya (also called Ahaseurus by Ezra - note Ezra 4:6)
    The next OFFICIAL King - who was crowned was called Darius (note Ezra 4:24)

    We have three kings in between Cyrus and Xerxes according to Ezra. We also have THREE kings noted between these two from other historical sources.
    This means that Daniel had a prophecy which did NOT include Cyrus in the future group, and means that Dan 11:2 does NOT support the claim made.
    What Gill is forced to do is to claim that Badiya wasn't really a king, in order to try to make Dan 11:2 show what is needed for Dan 7:17.
    Again, you are just arguing from your presumption that the kings must all be future, and none of them can be present. I'm not interested in arguing another passage in the same way.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You may have had the idea because you need something which will try to explain the issue, WITHOUT accepting that the simple usage is correct.
    No, I'm not convinced you are correct at all! Your "simple usage" may be misinformed. Your argument that "all 4 kingdoms must be future" does not appear to be accurate. The tenses are determined by aspect. Since it cannot be a past tense, it is given a future tense. And this future tense is from the aspect of one who is experiencing the event, as it is ongoing. This may include something that is already partly fulfilled, and yet ongoing.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Why would an existing kingdom, which even has its ruler elsewhere, and which is soon to end, with Belshazzar ignoring Daniel and to be the LAST ruler of the kingdom? I could just about accept it as a possibility IF Babylon were to have had another ruler who regained some of its splendour or glory as a kingdom. Yet all the information about Babylon from this point in time is that of a kingdom which is falling.
    That isn't the point. The point is, How can all 4 be presented as an ongoing future prophecy, even though the 1st kingdom is nearly at an end? What tense can present all 4 as a set? Of course, you conveniently dismiss these as a "set" because from your biased viewed this is an absurdity!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    All scholars should be peer reviewed. I have shown through peer review that Gill's logic is faulty.
    I have shown this in TWO ways:
    1) The language used is NOT meaning an existing kingdom.
    2) The example given also fails as there are three future kings AFTER Cyrus and BEFORE Xerxes.
    You are making *yourself* a peer of Gill?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If by obvious you mean, a widely accepted view, then that is one thing. However there is NOTHING idiosyncratic about Aramiac or any other language where you use the future tense to speak of a future kingdom (or group of kingdoms). You don't need to be a great scholar to KNOW that the future tense is used to speak of future things. Further ALL the "great" scholars, who have been involved in translating that particular passage ALL AGREE that it is a FUTURE tense and NOT the present. This means it is NOT about MY personal knowledge, but that of those involved in translation. I am a language scholar, just not an Aramaic specialist. I would have thought how often we argue about terms should give you a clue about this - but then you don't like to accept what I state about words and how they work, so perhaps this isn't surprising.
    If you are not a scholar in Hebrew or Aramaic, you *cannot* provide a "peer review" of Gill!

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,950
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder. I see the 4 as a set if for no other reason than they are presented together as a series. You may not view it that way. That does not give you a claim to infallibility in your proclamation that this is a "false construct." That is merely your opinion.
    The 4 kingdoms are being treated together. They are in fact mentioned as a *set.* Here in ch. 7 we see them as 4 beasts. But in ch. 2 we see what I believe to be the same kingdoms viewed as a single image.
    Because there are 4 kingdoms and these 4 are the ones in view so they are a "set"?
    They are indeed presented as a series, but that does NOT mean they are one group, which is what you are meaning by claiming them as a set.
    I don't have infallibility, but to claim they MUST be a set is a false construct, which was my point.
    As to Dan 2 I do NOT see this as the same kingdoms. They MIGHT be, but NOTHING in either prophecy demands it. I personally see a connection between some of them.

    In the lesson I provided on the Hebrew "tense," it was shown that *aspect* is critical, while "tense" is not part of the verb at all. The imperfect tense then would be viewed not just as future but as one actually experiencing the event. In this sense, it could not be in the past, but could instead be partly past and partly future.
    Nope. As it is about the SENSE, the sense presented IS future and NOT past nor present. You would use a different form or verb to have it as present or past.

    For example, if Daniel had written this down this dream after the fact, it would've all had a past tense--the event would've been completed, or "perfect." But Daniel was in the "aspect" of actually experiencing this in the present. It was an uncompleted event, and as such, was a future tense, or "imperfect." This is not to say the entire event was future, but that it simply was not yet complete.
    Actually we do have Daniel using the past tense when he reports what he saw. It is when he is reporting the ANGEL's words that he switches to a FUTURE usage.

    Again, you are just arguing from your presumption that the kings must all be future, and none of them can be present. I'm not interested in arguing another passage in the same way.
    Not a PRESUMPTION whatsoever.
    I just went through the KNOWN FACTS.
    We KNOW when Daniel had the vision because Daniel tells us this. We KNOW who was King.
    We KNOW who were the next 3 kings AND who the 4th king was.
    So this is NOT me arguing from any PRESUMPTION. How about you deal with the points I stated and the scripture which supports it and the history along with it.
    You find that NONE of them are present.
    Note also that I am doing this based on the king that Gill (your preferred scholar) states is the king in view - Xerxes.
    I am also NOT making an argument about whether something is in the imperfect tense, I am dealing with the FACT that it is the equivalent form (in Hebrew) and that it is the ONLY support Gill gives for such Dan 7:17 to be considered as a set with one of the set already around. I am them looking to see whether that claim is correct or not, and we KNOW it is NOT.

    No, I'm not convinced you are correct at all! Your "simple usage" may be misinformed. Your argument that "all 4 kingdoms must be future" does not appear to be accurate. The tenses are determined by aspect. Since it cannot be a past tense, it is given a future tense. And this future tense is from the aspect of one who is experiencing the event, as it is ongoing. This may include something that is already partly fulfilled, and yet ongoing.
    Of course you are not convinced. You prefer to rely on a complicated possible alternative way to understand it, which unfortunately does NOT have a single shred of Biblical support.
    My argument does APPEAR to be accurate, and does fit with what is ACTUALLY stated.
    As an aspect IF they are being considered as one set then the form would be present.
    You are arguing something you don;t actually know. Notice that NO ONE translates it in the present continuous which is how they would IF they thought it was as an ongoing event already started.
    Now the translators MIGHT have it wrong, it does happen, but it would need someone who is a specialist to highlight this. Something which you are unable to do. Therefore WITHOUT specialist support, the way it has been translated by ALL translators SHOULD tell you how they ALL think it should be understood.

    That isn't the point. The point is, How can all 4 be presented as an ongoing future prophecy, even though the 1st kingdom is nearly at an end? What tense can present all 4 as a set? Of course, you conveniently dismiss these as a "set" because from your biased viewed this is an absurdity!
    I already told you HOW you could present it as a set. You would use the present continuous very easily.
    My point about the present kingdom is that there is NOTHING about the present kingdom which shows it is RISING. Rather we have a kingdom which is FALLING. Therefore the present tense will NOT work IF we include Babylon and we would look for a past tense for the set.

    You are making *yourself* a peer of Gill?
    Sure, why not?
    A peer is someone who looks at what another has stated and considers whether it is correct what they have said or not. Often this is based upon the reasoning presented by that person.
    On this forum we are peer-reviewing each other.
    We can't ask Gill, but we can consider what he stated and follow his reasoning and see if it is valid according to what he has written.

    If you are not a scholar in Hebrew or Aramaic, you *cannot* provide a "peer review" of Gill!
    Incorrect. We can ALL peer review John Gill. We are limited by what he has written as we cannot question him. However when he states this is this because... then we can see IF what the because is is correct or not.
    John Gill studied Latin and Greek and was self-taught at Hebrew.
    I may not be able to debate certain things he stated as to their truth or not, without reference to others, but John Gill was just a man like anyone else. He had his ideas, some of which are right and others are open to debate - such as hyper Calvanism.
    However I notice that again you deflect from the actual argument to your vaunting of someone as though what they say is above question.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Because there are 4 kingdoms and these 4 are the ones in view so they are a "set"?
    They are indeed presented as a series, but that does NOT mean they are one group, which is what you are meaning by claiming them as a set.
    I don't have infallibility, but to claim they MUST be a set is a false construct, which was my point.
    As to Dan 2 I do NOT see this as the same kingdoms. They MIGHT be, but NOTHING in either prophecy demands it. I personally see a connection between some of them.
    I don't agree. The very fact the 4 Beasts appear together in a single dream, in sequence, and leading up to the Kingdom of God, indicates that are a *set.* I note that you are unwilling to bend on this matter.

    A feature of Daniel's prophecies are their relatedness. If we compare the 4 Kingdoms of Daniel's dream in ch. 7 with the 4 Kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in ch. 2, we see a similarity. Similarly, seeing a set of 4 Kingdoms in a set in ch. 2 would lend to the assumption that a set of 4 Kingdoms in ch. 7 might also be viewed as a set. An objective and open person would consider this a possibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope. As it is about the SENSE, the sense presented IS future and NOT past nor present. You would use a different form or verb to have it as present or past.
    Actually we do have Daniel using the past tense when he reports what he saw. It is when he is reporting the ANGEL's words that he switches to a FUTURE usage.
    Not a PRESUMPTION whatsoever.
    I just went through the KNOWN FACTS.
    We KNOW when Daniel had the vision because Daniel tells us this. We KNOW who was King.
    We KNOW who were the next 3 kings AND who the 4th king was.
    So this is NOT me arguing from any PRESUMPTION. How about you deal with the points I stated and the scripture which supports it and the history along with it.
    You find that NONE of them are present.
    Note also that I am doing this based on the king that Gill (your preferred scholar) states is the king in view - Xerxes.
    I am also NOT making an argument about whether something is in the imperfect tense, I am dealing with the FACT that it is the equivalent form (in Hebrew) and that it is the ONLY support Gill gives for such Dan 7:17 to be considered as a set with one of the set already around. I am them looking to see whether that claim is correct or not, and we KNOW it is NOT.
    I do think you're overly optimistic about your own conclusions. As I said, the ch. 11 example is not integral to the argument, but only an example of how the language could be used elsewhere. Of course, this makes assumption which could, as you suggest, be false.

    But I've noticed, in all our discussions, that your "tail" often "wags the dog." Your hyper-literal sense of a single word or phrase can upend an entire speech or context. A simple prophetic interpretation can be twisted way out of reason simply because you think a certain word shouldn't be used a certain way. You do this here in Dan 7, and you've done it with the 70 Weeks Prophecy, in my view.

    Can you imagine if I said something cannot be said to be "black" because the color, or shade, is a little brownish? The speaker may actually mean something is *dark,* calling it "black." But due to my insistence that the word "black" must mean "absolute black," the speaker could not have been referring to something that is black, but brownish? Brother, it's *speakers* who determine how their words are used--not the interpreter!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Of course you are not convinced. You prefer to rely on a complicated possible alternative way to understand it, which unfortunately does NOT have a single shred of Biblical support.
    "Not a shred of support?" That is pure bluster, brother.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    My argument does APPEAR to be accurate, and does fit with what is ACTUALLY stated.
    As an aspect IF they are being considered as one set then the form would be present.
    You are arguing something you don;t actually know. Notice that NO ONE translates it in the present continuous which is how they would IF they thought it was as an ongoing event already started.
    Now the translators MIGHT have it wrong, it does happen, but it would need someone who is a specialist to highlight this. Something which you are unable to do. Therefore WITHOUT specialist support, the way it has been translated by ALL translators SHOULD tell you how they ALL think it should be understood.
    I agree that I'm not qualified to "peer review" Gill or any other Hebrew scholar. On the other hand, many Hebrew scholars would accept my view of this passage, that the 4 Kingdoms do indeed represent Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Are you saying all of these scholars have "not a shred of evidence" for their conclusions, and lack your specialized skills?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I already told you HOW you could present it as a set. You would use the present continuous very easily.
    My point about the present kingdom is that there is NOTHING about the present kingdom which shows it is RISING. Rather we have a kingdom which is FALLING. Therefore the present tense will NOT work IF we include Babylon and we would look for a past tense for the set.
    You dance around the point. Nobody is saying the 1st Kingdom is "arising." It is rising as a *set.* The rest of the set has not yet "arisen." The beginning already exists. I don't know anything about a "present continuous" form. I would have to research, or ask around. Perhaps you could give me an example where such a form is used in Scriptures, in a comparable situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Sure, why not?
    A peer is someone who looks at what another has stated and considers whether it is correct what they have said or not. Often this is based upon the reasoning presented by that person.
    On this forum we are peer-reviewing each other.
    We can't ask Gill, but we can consider what he stated and follow his reasoning and see if it is valid according to what he has written.
    I think of "peer reviews" as scholars in one specialized field judging similar scholars in the same field. I have no problem with judging Gill as fellow Christians. Even brilliant men have biases and sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Incorrect. We can ALL peer review John Gill. We are limited by what he has written as we cannot question him. However when he states this is this because... then we can see IF what the because is is correct or not.
    John Gill studied Latin and Greek and was self-taught at Hebrew.
    I may not be able to debate certain things he stated as to their truth or not, without reference to others, but John Gill was just a man like anyone else. He had his ideas, some of which are right and others are open to debate - such as hyper Calvanism.
    However I notice that again you deflect from the actual argument to your vaunting of someone as though what they say is above question.
    Who said I held John Gill as in higher esteem than anybody else? He is simply a featured commentator on Bible Hub, and I think they would likely present a balanced perspective. I may adopt some of his views, and reject other views that he had.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,950
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't agree. The very fact the 4 Beasts appear together in a single dream, in sequence, and leading up to the Kingdom of God, indicates that are a *set.* I note that you are unwilling to bend on this matter.
    I can wear a red sock and a blue sock and brown shorts and a black jumper, yet this does NOT make them a set, though they are ALL clothes and I am wearing them all.
    The question boils down to what MAKES them a "set". IOW what are you attributing to them that makes them AS A set, and how that potentially changes how you talk about them.

    A feature of Daniel's prophecies are their relatedness. If we compare the 4 Kingdoms of Daniel's dream in ch. 7 with the 4 Kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in ch. 2, we see a similarity. Similarly, seeing a set of 4 Kingdoms in a set in ch. 2 would lend to the assumption that a set of 4 Kingdoms in ch. 7 might also be viewed as a set. An objective and open person would consider this a possibility.
    Sure we see a similarity. There is even a connection. That does NOT make them the same. Instead it should drive us to consider HOW the two are related, and what the one dream shows whihc the other does not.
    However in Daniel 2 there are NOT 4 kingdoms shown, so that should by itself tell you they are NOT identical.

    I do think you're overly optimistic about your own conclusions. As I said, the ch. 11 example is not integral to the argument, but only an example of how the language could be used elsewhere. Of course, this makes assumption which could, as you suggest, be false.

    But I've noticed, in all our discussions, that your "tail" often "wags the dog." Your hyper-literal sense of a single word or phrase can upend an entire speech or context. A simple prophetic interpretation can be twisted way out of reason simply because you think a certain word shouldn't be used a certain way. You do this here in Dan 7, and you've done it with the 70 Weeks Prophecy, in my view.

    Can you imagine if I said something cannot be said to be "black" because the color, or shade, is a little brownish? The speaker may actually mean something is *dark,* calling it "black." But due to my insistence that the word "black" must mean "absolute black," the speaker could not have been referring to something that is black, but brownish? Brother, it's *speakers* who determine how their words are used--not the interpreter!
    Not really. Chapter 11 IS integral to Gill's argument. Without it then there is NOTHING in Chapter 7 which says that the WHOLE group is FUTURE is incorrect.
    I NEVER have a tail wagging the dog as I ALWAYS go for the CONTEXT before ANYTHING else.
    I do NOT have a hyper-literal sense of words. I simply read a word and follow what its NORMAL usage means. That is NOT being hyper-literal, but normal.
    Now IF there was something which showed that the normal usage is wrong, then I would follow the reasoning for the change.
    However there is NOTHING in the language in Dan 7 which suggests the normal usage is wrong. We then have to jump to Dan 11 to try to get an example, which we find does NOT show what is claimed, so we have NO examples of a change WITHIN Daniel. Therefore what YOU are doing is actually looking for words NOT to mean what they mean, which is simply weird and wrong-headed.

    "Not a shred of support?" That is pure bluster, brother.
    Not bluster. Provide your Biblical support. You have none. I can find none, and Gill provided some which I explained FROM scripture AND history was incorrect.
    So to show it is bluster you need to find that elusive Biblical support.

    I agree that I'm not qualified to "peer review" Gill or any other Hebrew scholar. On the other hand, many Hebrew scholars would accept my view of this passage, that the 4 Kingdoms do indeed represent Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Are you saying all of these scholars have "not a shred of evidence" for their conclusions, and lack your specialized skills?
    How many Hebrew scholars do you personally know? I knew one. I can't argue for any of these scholars who supposedly hold your view. I can ONLY deal with whether ANY of these Hebrew scholars would CHANGE the translation from the future tense. Not one as far as I know, which therefore means that there interpretation - or acceptance of yours would NOT be down to the Hebrew/Aramaic but other factors.

    You dance around the point. Nobody is saying the 1st Kingdom is "arising." It is rising as a *set.* The rest of the set has not yet "arisen." The beginning already exists. I don't know anything about a "present continuous" form. I would have to research, or ask around. Perhaps you could give me an example where such a form is used in Scriptures, in a comparable situation?
    What dancing?
    If the set is will rise then it means NONE of the set has yet risen.
    However if we say the set is RISING, like the sun rises, then it means it is coming up. However this is a DIFFERENT translation using the present continuous which NONE of the Bible translators have used.
    The present continuous of any verb is composed of two parts - the present tense of the verb to be + the present participle of the main verb.

    I think of "peer reviews" as scholars in one specialized field judging similar scholars in the same field. I have no problem with judging Gill as fellow Christians. Even brilliant men have biases and sin.
    I am not saying Gill was wrong in his usage of Hebrew, and you may note that Gill did NOT say that it was NOT the future form, and his claim was NOT based on changing that. Gill's argument was that it could be that one of a set might be included as we find an example in Dan 11. However Dan 11 doesn't provide the support he needs for his claim, so I can peer review that and note he did NOT try changing the tense as given.

    Who said I held John Gill as in higher esteem than anybody else? He is simply a featured commentator on Bible Hub, and I think they would likely present a balanced perspective. I may adopt some of his views, and reject other views that he had.
    BibleHub simply give commentators who are free to share. John Gill (23 November 1697 – 14 October 1771) was an English Baptist pastor, biblical scholar, and theologian who held to a firm Calvinistic soteriology.
    There are many more.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I can wear a red sock and a blue sock and brown shorts and a black jumper, yet this does NOT make them a set, though they are ALL clothes and I am wearing them all.
    The question boils down to what MAKES them a "set". IOW what are you attributing to them that makes them AS A set, and how that potentially changes how you talk about them.
    In all honesty, I saw your example as a "set of clothing." When people put on clothes in the morning, they try to get a proper match. The clothing becomes a "set."

    So what makes the 4 Beasts a "set" is the fact they are obviously a series--they are all beasts that appear in sequence and are dealt with in connection with one another. Even more, they appear to refer a few chapters back to the dream of Nebuchadnezzar--also a *dream.*

    In that dream 4 Kingdoms are all connected to a single image. This makes them a set. So if the 4 Beasts relate to that dream, they also are a set. They refer to the great image in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar.

    Dan 7.“So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 ‘The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth. 18 But the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’ "

    The 4 Beasts are all dealt with here *together,* and somehow reflect, as a series, a development towards the Kingdom of God. That makes them a "set."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Sure we see a similarity. There is even a connection. That does NOT make them the same. Instead it should drive us to consider HOW the two are related, and what the one dream shows whihc the other does not.
    However in Daniel 2 there are NOT 4 kingdoms shown, so that should by itself tell you they are NOT identical.
    Of course 4 Kingdoms are shown in Dan 2! I don't know what you're talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Not really. Chapter 11 IS integral to Gill's argument. Without it then there is NOTHING in Chapter 7 which says that the WHOLE group is FUTURE is incorrect.
    That is false. Ch. 11 is *not* integral to his argument. It is merely evidence that language can be used this way in this particular language.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I NEVER have a tail wagging the dog as I ALWAYS go for the CONTEXT before ANYTHING else.
    I do NOT have a hyper-literal sense of words. I simply read a word and follow what its NORMAL usage means. That is NOT being hyper-literal, but normal.
    I'm giving you an objective opinion. Your opinion of yourself is *not* objective. My specialty, at one time, was behavioral--yours is lingual.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Now IF there was something which showed that the normal usage is wrong, then I would follow the reasoning for the change.
    However there is NOTHING in the language in Dan 7 which suggests the normal usage is wrong. We then have to jump to Dan 11 to try to get an example, which we find does NOT show what is claimed, so we have NO examples of a change WITHIN Daniel. Therefore what YOU are doing is actually looking for words NOT to mean what they mean, which is simply weird and wrong-headed.
    Has it ever occurred to you that scholars have held to my opinion, and have a better understanding of Aramaic than you do? I'm not saying they're thereby correct. But it should give you pause, and be less self-confident, ie if you were more objective about it.

    As I said, the tense is *not* in the Aramaic. It has to be determined by context. But you are determining that an imperfect tense must *exclude* a set that includes a present reality. The set as a whole is not yet in the past. And so the set must be viewed, as a whole, as future.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Not bluster. Provide your Biblical support. You have none. I can find none, and Gill provided some which I explained FROM scripture AND history was incorrect.
    So to show it is bluster you need to find that elusive Biblical support.
    The support is common sense. The book of Daniel focuses on 4 primary kingdoms, beginning with the Kingdom Daniel was originally a part of--Babylon. Persia is clearly dealt with in ch. 8. And Greece clearly follows in the same chapter. In ch. 9 we get a view of the end of a 70 Weeks period, when Messiah comes and the city and temple are destroyed by the Romans. This is the great indescribable Beast, or the 4th Kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar's vision. They all follow logically in sequence. The only thing causing you to move things out of sequence is your concern over the tense of a word. And you don't even know Aramaic--or at least aren't a scholar in the language.

    I'm not saying you even have to be a scholar to make logical deductions. But you're upending a very logical scenario due to your insistence on translating a language that you are not equipped to translate. Why stubbornly insist on a single view when the view I hold to is very possible in light of what actual scholars say?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    How many Hebrew scholars do you personally know? I knew one. I can't argue for any of these scholars who supposedly hold your view. I can ONLY deal with whether ANY of these Hebrew scholars would CHANGE the translation from the future tense. Not one as far as I know, which therefore means that there interpretation - or acceptance of yours would NOT be down to the Hebrew/Aramaic but other factors.
    I don't know Hebrew at all. I started to study, but lacked the time. My brother has only one year of Hebrew, but has been trying to translate the Bible from the Hebrew. He readily admits he is an amateur. And yet he points out things to me on this subject that you don't seem to recognize! He pointed out that the verbs don't even have tenses. So how can you determine a future tense by context must exclude a Kingdom that already exists, when in context they are all a set?

    I suppose I can ask my brother if he has acquaintance with Hebrew scholars? I'd just like to think you're willing to change if you find you're wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    What dancing?
    If the set is will rise then it means NONE of the set has yet risen.
    That is obviously wrong. A set does not all have to be future. The set can be 3 futures and 1 present, and still present all 4 as a future set, if the word can function as both future and present!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    However if we say the set is RISING, like the sun rises, then it means it is coming up. However this is a DIFFERENT translation using the present continuous which NONE of the Bible translators have used.
    The present continuous of any verb is composed of two parts - the present tense of the verb to be + the present participle of the main verb.
    We aren't talking English here, brother. You have yet to prove that this "future" context must exclude something present! You haven't done that. You are *presuming* that the entire set is future.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I am not saying Gill was wrong in his usage of Hebrew, and you may note that Gill did NOT say that it was NOT the future form, and his claim was NOT based on changing that. Gill's argument was that it could be that one of a set might be included as we find an example in Dan 11. However Dan 11 doesn't provide the support he needs for his claim, so I can peer review that and note he did NOT try changing the tense as given.
    That is not a peer review. A peer review is a scholar in the same field as another, judging on the same standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    BibleHub simply give commentators who are free to share. John Gill (23 November 1697 – 14 October 1771) was an English Baptist pastor, biblical scholar, and theologian who held to a firm Calvinistic soteriology.
    There are many more.
    I'm aware.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,950
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    In all honesty, I saw your example as a "set of clothing." When people put on clothes in the morning, they try to get a proper match. The clothing becomes a "set."
    My point was that clothing CAN be a set OR it can be simply a disparate collection of clothes.
    IF they match they are a SET, but IF they are all different THEN they are NOT a SET.

    So what makes the 4 Beasts a "set" is the fact they are obviously a series--they are all beasts that appear in sequence and are dealt with in connection with one another. Even more, they appear to refer a few chapters back to the dream of Nebuchadnezzar--also a *dream.*
    So now a series is a set? They follow one after the other, but this does NOT make it a series either.
    I can watch Lord of the Rings, then listen to some music, then do some cooking, and then go to sleep. These are actions performed in series, yet they do NOT comprise a "collection" or a "series" nor a "set".
    Now it is correct to note that these kingdoms have a relationship with Daniel, but so do the actions I described have a connection with me.
    It is INCORRECT to claim they are a series simply because they have a connection.
    The second point is that NOWHERE in Dan 7 does it refer back to Dan 2.
    This is a connection you or I might make, as might Daniel, but again by itself does NOT form a SET.

    Of course 4 Kingdoms are shown in Dan 2! I don't know what you're talking about?
    Nope, there are MORE than 4 Kingdoms shown in Daniel 2. That you do NOT understand this simply shows you haven't paid attention to the dream, especially as you are the one who makes them into a SET. I actually would agree with you that these Kingdoms are shown as a SET as they comprise a STATUE

    That is false. Ch. 11 is *not* integral to his argument. It is merely evidence that language can be used this way in this particular language.
    Not false at all. It is ENTIRELY integral. Without it he has no argument. He makes NO claim to the Aramaic or to Hebrew being used in this way EXCEPT what he claims about Dan 11. These are his comments about Dan 7:17
    four kings shall arise out of the earth; or kingdoms; which have an earthly original and foundation; are supported by earthly and worldly means, and with earthly and worldly views; and are different from the kingdom of Christ and his saints, which is not of the world, though it may be in it: this explains what is meant by the great sea, from whence these beasts are said to come up, Dan_7:3, nor is it any material objection that the first of these kingdoms, the Babylonian, was risen already, and almost at an end; since the denomination is taken from the larger number; three of them were to arise, and the first was of the same original with them; thus it is said, Dan_11:2, that three kings of Persia should stand up, and yet Cyrus, who was one of them, reigned already.

    So no Gill does NOT provide ANY evidence from any other place, or that this is a normal usage of the language EXCEPT how he reads Dan 11:2.

    Has it ever occurred to you that scholars have held to my opinion, and have a better understanding of Aramaic than you do? I'm not saying they're thereby correct. But it should give you pause, and be less self-confident, ie if you were more objective about it.
    As I said, the tense is *not* in the Aramaic. It has to be determined by context. But you are determining that an imperfect tense must *exclude* a set that includes a present reality. The set as a whole is not yet in the past. And so the set must be viewed, as a whole, as future.
    Has it EVER occurred to you that EVERY SINGLE scholar who has been involved in translating this passage has in EVERY SINGLE occasion translated it with a FUTURE meaning.
    Therefore I have the backing of EVERY scholar. John Gill does NOT challenge the translation either, he accepts HOW it is translated as being CORRECT. His argument is NOT based upon language but upon his taking of the idea that a FUTURE group might have a PRESENT component, and his SOLE support for this argument is Dan 11:2.
    You see I do consider why other people might hold a view and even work through how they came to their conclusion and look at the backing for such a conclusion.
    I am 100% confident that the FUTURE form being used is 100% correct because there is ZERO dissension among ANY scholars on this point, in ANY version. If you can't gain confidence from that, then what can you have confidence in?
    Further CONTEXT is ALWAYS determined by how the WORDS are used. So IF the FUTURE form is used THEN our CONTEXTUAL understanding takes in the REALITY of the FORM of the language and ACCEPTS it as a TRUTH and so this leads to a proper understanding of CONTEXT.
    The SET as a whole is NOT past, nor is it even in the present, but it is ENTIRELY in the FUTURE. Gill presented an argument of a FUTURE set, which has but one part in the present, making the majority of it FUTURE and thus suggesting that this is why the FUTURE is used. However his reasoning falls down, both on how such sets would be described AND crucially for his view, on the basis of Dan 11:2.

    The support is common sense. The book of Daniel focuses on 4 primary kingdoms, beginning with the Kingdom Daniel was originally a part of--Babylon. Persia is clearly dealt with in ch. 8. And Greece clearly follows in the same chapter. In ch. 9 we get a view of the end of a 70 Weeks period, when Messiah comes and the city and temple are destroyed by the Romans. This is the great indescribable Beast, or the 4th Kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar's vision. They all follow logically in sequence. The only thing causing you to move things out of sequence is your concern over the tense of a word. And you don't even know Aramaic--or at least aren't a scholar in the language.

    I'm not saying you even have to be a scholar to make logical deductions. But you're upending a very logical scenario due to your insistence on translating a language that you are not equipped to translate. Why stubbornly insist on a single view when the view I hold to is very possible in light of what actual scholars say?
    Really? Common sense? Daniel does NOT focus on 4 kingdoms. It notes at least 7 - you have the kingdom of Israel, Babylon, Medes, Persians, Greeks (though this is split into Alexander, and the Kings of the North and the South - so really 3), Rome, and the Kingdom that will be given to the saints. There is also the Kingdom of the AC (the Beast if you prefer).
    Persia is NOT mainly in Dan 8, for that is the AC's kingdom as seen in A4E. It is also not mainly in Dan 11, but is worth just a few lines.
    Dan 9 does indeed speak of the 70 weeks without reference to a single kingdom, except indirectly of Daniel and his people, and the prince(s).
    The 70 weeks ends LIKE Dan 2 and Dan 7 (which you don't seem to accept) with the Kingdom of the saints and NOT with 70 AD. This is what common sense tells us.

    I don't know Hebrew at all. I started to study, but lacked the time. My brother has only one year of Hebrew, but has been trying to translate the Bible from the Hebrew. He readily admits he is an amateur. And yet he points out things to me on this subject that you don't seem to recognize! He pointed out that the verbs don't even have tenses. So how can you determine a future tense by context must exclude a Kingdom that already exists, when in context they are all a set?
    Actually I did recognise this about tenses and gave you the links so that you could follow the argument, as verbs are generally used differently depending upon the idea of time wanted. As you couldn't be bothered to follow my link...
    As noted above the translators of the Bible have NO such issue with determining the tense, and they have complete AGREEMENT with each other, whether in the Aramaic or Hebrew or Septuagint.
    αναστησονται
    This is the fut mp ind 3rd pl which is used in the NT in Matt 12:41:
    Mat 12:41* The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

    So those involved in translating into Greek before the time of Jesus used the clear Greek 3rd person Future Indicative. Are you arguing that how Matt 12:41 is translated is wrong?

    I suppose I can ask my brother if he has acquaintance with Hebrew scholars? I'd just like to think you're willing to change if you find you're wrong?
    Of course if you could find anyone to show I am wrong, then I would be open to it.
    However as the Hebrew scholars from 200 years before Jesus understood it to be a very clear FUTURE meaning from the verb used, and as EVERY subsequent Hebrew and Greek scholar involved in Bible translation has done the SAME, I really think you are approaching this from the WRONG angle.
    Gill didn't challenge the way it was translated, but tried to find a way around the problem by proposing his solution of a FUTURE group, yet with a PRESENT aspect, and so used the SOLE example of Dan 11:2 to support his view.
    This is why I focused my argument on his proof text supporting his idea, and didn't try circular reasoning with you.

    That is obviously wrong. A set does not all have to be future. The set can be 3 futures and 1 present, and still present all 4 as a future set, if the word can function as both future and present!
    Actually it is OBVIOUSLY correct. Of course A set doesn't have to be all future, but IF you speak about a SET of which at least part of it is present then you do NOT use the FUTURE tense, but some form of PRESENT, such as the PRESENT CONTINUOUS.

    We aren't talking English here, brother. You have yet to prove that this "future" context must exclude something present! You haven't done that. You are *presuming* that the entire set is future.
    We are talking language here, and though I am not deep in Hebrew, I have studied Semetic languages, including Hebrew and Arabic, as well as being fluent in a variety of languages. There is no presumption. This is how these languages work. You may find some where the usage seems backwards from English, yet we can still translate them because the IDEAS contained within are still clarified.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    You may not need links, but I also recognise others may need to check.
    Why WOULD you say it? You are creating a presupposition.
    Think about how you might put it in English.
    In English you would say there ARE 4 kingdoms (because the SET ALREADY exists). However why do you make them a SET? There is NOTHING which demands they are a set, in fact the 4th beast is different to the other 3. The ONLY way to consider them a "set" is because they are kingdoms. The CONSTRUCT of a set is actually a FALSE construct.
    It is a lot easier to simply follow what is stated, and this is that ALL 4 are future. To claim otherwise is to actually change the meaning WITHOUT it being so said.
    I find the 4 Beasts to be a *set* by default for no other reason than they are listed in sequence, and they are all beasts. What you are doing is calling something a "false construct" while assuming what you wish to prove. You have not at all disproven the group as a "set." Most people, I should think, would view them as a set? The 1st beast, though already present, is part of the future group because it is currently active and leading to the 3 future beasts.

    It does no good trying to read English equivalents back into Aramaic, because we have grammatical forms that it doesn't use. As I was told, Hebrew verbs utilize "aspect," and don't have tenses. Their tense must be understood *by the context.* I'm assuming that Aramaic is like the Hebrew in this sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually you can as according to you the "set" ALREADY exists. You see IF the language is about the GROUP (or set) as a whole then you use the tense related to the group as a whole, which in your idea would be either the past or the present. Neither the past or the present was used, therefore if it is as a group then the future means the ENTIRE group is future.

    I have a club. I am the founding member. You will join as will others. You individually are noted in the future, but the club is noted in the present (or if I founded it a year ago, then could be noted in the past). In Dan 7 though it is
    Again, you are assuming a future tense is given when *no tense is given.* The context merely indicates the imperfect, meaning an uncompleted action. Babylon, the 1st Beast, was not yet completed, and thus is referred to by the imperfect form. And Persia, Greece, and Rome were also not yet completed, nor even started, and so were also, in context, referred to by the imperfect form. They were all a set as uncompleted forms of activity. You have not shown me how, in Aramaic, the group of 4 could thus be stated as incomplete, other than in the way it is given? You have simply asked for a generic grammatical form--not an Aramaic form.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually no, I am not using the SAME argument. The ONLY reason to claim that Dan 7:17 is about an existing one being included in a future group, is to claim that Dan 11:2 shows this.
    However ENTIRELY separate to the discussion about the verb form of Dan 11:2 we have a historical reality AND the statement by the person who claims this.
    Gill agrees it is Xerxes who is the 4th king. So it is simple to see how many kings are future from Dan 11:2 statement.
    Dan 11:1* Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.*

    So Darius the Mede is King.
    Now, he is believed to reign as a sub-king of Cyrus. Cyrus was certainly ALREADY King of Persia at this time.

    Dan 11:2* “And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them.
    So the 4th is Xerxes
    There are three other kings that SHALL arise. So did history have THREE kings arise in Persia AFTER Cyrus but BEFORE Xerxes? If the answer is no, then you would have an example which has Daniel including an existing king in a future group.
    Well after Cyrus, the next OFFICIAL King - who was crowned and ruled was Cambyses (also called Artaxerxes by Ezra - note Ezra 4:7).
    The next OFFICIAL King - who was crowned was called Bardiya (also called Ahaseurus by Ezra - note Ezra 4:6)
    The next OFFICIAL King - who was crowned was called Darius (note Ezra 4:24)

    We have three kings in between Cyrus and Xerxes according to Ezra. We also have THREE kings noted between these two from other historical sources.
    This means that Daniel had a prophecy which did NOT include Cyrus in the future group, and means that Dan 11:2 does NOT support the claim made.
    What Gill is forced to do is to claim that Badiya wasn't really a king, in order to try to make Dan 11:2 show what is needed for Dan 7:17.
    I'm not interested in the interpretation of this passage here. This was Gill's argument--not mine. It was an attempt at giving an example of the same kind of use, depicting a set as future, while one existed in the present. I could care less whether it was right or wrong. You, however, are trying to apply tenses where they apparently don't exist, except by "aspect."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You may have had the idea because you need something which will try to explain the issue, WITHOUT accepting that the simple usage is correct.
    "Simple" could also mean "ignorant." I don't automatically accept the "simple meaning." As I said, applying English rules of grammar to the Aramaic language could be the wrong thing to do.

    On the other hand, it is logical to see the 4 Beasts of Dan 7 as the same as the 4 Kingdoms of Dan 2. A "future aspect" would be a normal assumption if we're looking, generally, at *future prophecy.*

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Why would an existing kingdom, which even has its ruler elsewhere, and which is soon to end, with Belshazzar ignoring Daniel and to be the LAST ruler of the kingdom? I could just about accept it as a possibility IF Babylon were to have had another ruler who regained some of its splendour or glory as a kingdom. Yet all the information about Babylon from this point in time is that of a kingdom which is falling.
    This is a *future prophecy* which is projecting beyond the current state of affairs. Babylon is purely the launching pad for a succession of 3 more kingdoms. Again, this is a future prophecy, with the emphasis being on the future aspect of 3 more kingdoms following in succession. Nobody is saying that the 1st Beast is anything more than a marker for the start of this succession. Prophecy of its continuing existence was not in focus. Rather, the focus was on identifying it as the start of a succession of kingdoms, leading to something significant in history.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    All scholars should be peer reviewed. I have shown through peer review that Gill's logic is faulty.
    I have shown this in TWO ways:
    1) The language used is NOT meaning an existing kingdom.
    2) The example given also fails as there are three future kings AFTER Cyrus and BEFORE Xerxes.
    You are simply critiquing Gill's views. You are *not* peer reviewing him as if you were a Hebrew/Aramaic language scholar, or even a scholar of Gill's theological caliber.

    Out of curiosity, do you have any peer-reviewed work? My brother wants to know?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If by obvious you mean, a widely accepted view, then that is one thing. However there is NOTHING idiosyncratic about Aramiac or any other language where you use the future tense to speak of a future kingdom (or group of kingdoms). You don't need to be a great scholar to KNOW that the future tense is used to speak of future things. Further ALL the "great" scholars, who have been involved in translating that particular passage ALL AGREE that it is a FUTURE tense and NOT the present. This means it is NOT about MY personal knowledge, but that of those involved in translation. I am a language scholar, just not an Aramaic specialist. I would have thought how often we argue about terms should give you a clue about this - but then you don't like to accept what I state about words and how they work, so perhaps this isn't surprising.
    The assumption of an imperfect, future sense is logical since all 4 kingdoms are not yet in the past! Your lack of comprehension here amazes me, unless there is something I'm just not seeing here? There is *no tense in the Aramaic* in reference to these verbs.

    So, to say it involves a future tense is a matter of context. I would simply say it is a future tense because the set largely focuses on a succession of 3 future kings. The 1st king is as yet incomplete, and so shares in the aspect of an incomplete sense.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,950
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I find the 4 Beasts to be a *set* by default for no other reason than they are listed in sequence, and they are all beasts. What you are doing is calling something a "false construct" while assuming what you wish to prove. You have not at all disproven the group as a "set." Most people, I should think, would view them as a set? The 1st beast, though already present, is part of the future group because it is currently active and leading to the 3 future beasts.
    Nope, I am not creating a false construct. It is you who is creating a CONSTRUCT for you are claiming they ARE a set, when they are NOT stated as being such.
    Even IF we accept your notion that they are some form of set, there is no way to have one of the group as ALREADY active when ALL are future.

    It does no good trying to read English equivalents back into Aramaic, because we have grammatical forms that it doesn't use. As I was told, Hebrew verbs utilize "aspect," and don't have tenses. Their tense must be understood *by the context.* I'm assuming that Aramaic is like the Hebrew in this sense.
    Actually you CAN read ANY language into ANY language.
    You may need to change the DIRECT words used, or think through the idiomatic meaning, however a Hebrew person or an Aramaic speaker has an understanding of FUTURE events AND PAST events.

    Again, you are assuming a future tense is given when *no tense is given.* The context merely indicates the imperfect, meaning an uncompleted action. Babylon, the 1st Beast, was not yet completed, and thus is referred to by the imperfect form. And Persia, Greece, and Rome were also not yet completed, nor even started, and so were also, in context, referred to by the imperfect form. They were all a set as uncompleted forms of activity. You have not shown me how, in Aramaic, the group of 4 could thus be stated as incomplete, other than in the way it is given? You have simply asked for a generic grammatical form--not an Aramaic form.
    Actually the CONSTRUCTION of the sentence is such that the EQUIVALENT meaning IN Greek and English IS a FUTURE meaning.
    As for you claim about imperfect, now you are trying to use English usage of the imperfect, when you have been arguing we need to follow the way Hebrew/Aramaic uses the imperfect (which is the correct way).

    I'm not interested in the interpretation of this passage here. This was Gill's argument--not mine. It was an attempt at giving an example of the same kind of use, depicting a set as future, while one existed in the present. I could care less whether it was right or wrong. You, however, are trying to apply tenses where they apparently don't exist, except by "aspect."
    You UTILISED Gill's commentary as supporting your view. Therefore I had to show whether Gill's argument is tenable or not. And it isn't.
    An aspect is VERY important in Hebrew, and is utilised like other grammar forms to CONVEY information. You don;t seem to accept the information that the Hebrew form used conveys.
    I can't help you there.

    "Simple" could also mean "ignorant." I don't automatically accept the "simple meaning." As I said, applying English rules of grammar to the Aramaic language could be the wrong thing to do. On the other hand, it is logical to see the 4 Beasts of Dan 7 as the same as the 4 Kingdoms of Dan 2. A "future aspect" would be a normal assumption if we're looking, generally, at *future prophecy.*
    I get the impression you don't understand the PURPOSE of grammar rules. They are there to CLARIFY what meaning is intended. All scholars who translated this passage have UNDERSTOOD the meaning which is to be CONVEYED is best translated in other languages in the FUTURE tense.
    This is done in Greek AND in English.
    Are you REALLY trying to argue that EVERY SINGLE scholar, BOTH the ancient scholars who translated the Septuagint AND EVERY modern scholar who translated it into English do NOT understand how Hebrew / Aramaic work and couldn't present the words in the CORRECT form?
    As for your other logic, that is entirely debatable separately, but is DETERMINED upon your initial claim that the FUTURE tense used is wrong.
    IF you accept that EVERY SINGLE scholar for thousands of years has understood it to mean the FUTURE then it means your logic has NO basis in the first place (regardless of your other erros around this).

    This is a *future prophecy* which is projecting beyond the current state of affairs. Babylon is purely the launching pad for a succession of 3 more kingdoms. Again, this is a future prophecy, with the emphasis being on the future aspect of 3 more kingdoms following in succession. Nobody is saying that the 1st Beast is anything more than a marker for the start of this succession. Prophecy of its continuing existence was not in focus. Rather, the focus was on identifying it as the start of a succession of kingdoms, leading to something significant in history.
    So if it is FUTURE, then the question is whether ANY of it is present. None of it is. The statement about the 4 beast is that they WILL arise, not they they are rising or have arisen.

    You are simply critiquing Gill's views. You are *not* peer reviewing him as if you were a Hebrew/Aramaic language scholar, or even a scholar of Gill's theological caliber.
    Out of curiosity, do you have any peer-reviewed work? My brother wants to know?
    I agree I am not peer reviewing him as a Hebrew/Aramaic scholar. I am peer reviewing him on his commentary. What is required for that? You seem to wish to elevate him beyond a person whose arguments need to be sound (for what a peer review does is consider the basis for ANY claim).
    I have not had anything published.

    The assumption of an imperfect, future sense is logical since all 4 kingdoms are not yet in the past! Your lack of comprehension here amazes me, unless there is something I'm just not seeing here? There is *no tense in the Aramaic* in reference to these verbs.
    So, to say it involves a future tense is a matter of context. I would simply say it is a future tense because the set largely focuses on a succession of 3 future kings. The 1st king is as yet incomplete, and so shares in the aspect of an incomplete sense.
    If it is the imperfect future tense THEN that means that NOT one of the kingdoms are present, nor past!
    You are actually claiming it is imperfect present tense.
    An example of the imperfect future tense in English would be "4 kingdoms will be rising...", yet you do not EVER use this form for an action which started in the past.
    The imperfect present tense example would be "4 kingdoms were rising..."
    English doesn't really have an imperfect form but instead uses the past progressive or forms like "used to" which suggests actions which started but are incomplete.
    However the form used is not a past imperfect but a future imperfect, so it is an action YET to start, and which will finish sometime future to that.

    In conclusion, you prefer to REJECT every single BIBLE translator from throughout history who has translated this sentence as the future tense. After doing so you then are free to make it mean whatever you like. Well if we can change what is said in God's word to a different form how we like then I guess there is no way to have agreement on what His word says.
    Personally I will stick with how EVERY SINGLE translator has translated it and note it is in the FUTURE with NO ASPECT of it meaning in the past.
    UNTIL you choose to accept the evidence of scripture and Bible scholars, there is nothing more to be said.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Nope, I am not creating a false construct. It is you who is creating a CONSTRUCT for you are claiming they ARE a set, when they are NOT stated as being such.
    Even IF we accept your notion that they are some form of set, there is no way to have one of the group as ALREADY active when ALL are future.
    That's obviously not true since the 4 kingdoms in Dan2 were a set and contained 3 future kingdoms and one presently active, namely Babylon.

    This is a most ridiculous argument, claiming that 4 listed kingdoms are not a set, when that is exactly how they are being presented. They do not have to be mentioned *as a set* to be inferring them as such! You're trying to prove a square is a circle, as far as I'm concerned. And I have no interest in such ridiculous arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually you CAN read ANY language into ANY language.
    You may need to change the DIRECT words used, or think through the idiomatic meaning, however a Hebrew person or an Aramaic speaker has an understanding of FUTURE events AND PAST events.
    Each language has its own grammatical rules. Nobody would argue the fact that all languages are communication, if that's what you're suggesting?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually the CONSTRUCTION of the sentence is such that the EQUIVALENT meaning IN Greek and English IS a FUTURE meaning.
    As for you claim about imperfect, now you are trying to use English usage of the imperfect, when you have been arguing we need to follow the way Hebrew/Aramaic uses the imperfect (which is the correct way).
    I'm arguing that scholars who claim the verbs to have a *future* aspect are basing their sense on a choice between perfect and imperfect senses. Though the imperfect sense is normally future, it is equally applicable to something that is present and not yet complete.

    In other words, I'm explaining what English translators suggest the application of these verbs to have in an imperfect aspect. And I see no reason that a current kingdom cannot be part of a set of future kingdoms as a currently active one, not yet completed?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You UTILISED Gill's commentary as supporting your view. Therefore I had to show whether Gill's argument is tenable or not. And it isn't.
    An aspect is VERY important in Hebrew, and is utilised like other grammar forms to CONVEY information. You don;t seem to accept the information that the Hebrew form used conveys.
    I can't help you there.
    I'm sure I wouldn't agree with Gill on all matters. He just offered an example of where the same situation occurs elsewhere, in his view. You don't have to accept his interpretation, nor do I.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I get the impression you don't understand the PURPOSE of grammar rules. They are there to CLARIFY what meaning is intended. All scholars who translated this passage have UNDERSTOOD the meaning which is to be CONVEYED is best translated in other languages in the FUTURE tense.
    This is done in Greek AND in English.
    Are you REALLY trying to argue that EVERY SINGLE scholar, BOTH the ancient scholars who translated the Septuagint AND EVERY modern scholar who translated it into English do NOT understand how Hebrew / Aramaic work and couldn't present the words in the CORRECT form?
    No, those who translated it in the future sense also allowed for the set to include Babylon as a non-future, and yet current kingdom. In other words, you are assuming that the translators who used the future tense did not themselves view the set as inclusive of a present kingdom?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As for your other logic, that is entirely debatable separately, but is DETERMINED upon your initial claim that the FUTURE tense used is wrong.
    IF you accept that EVERY SINGLE scholar for thousands of years has understood it to mean the FUTURE then it means your logic has NO basis in the first place (regardless of your other erros around this).
    See my last statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So if it is FUTURE, then the question is whether ANY of it is present. None of it is. The statement about the 4 beast is that they WILL arise, not they they are rising or have arisen.
    Those scholars who translate the text as future are not creating an iron clad rule as you are doing! They utilized the future tense considering the set of 4 kingdoms as *incomplete,* or *imperfect.*

    What about this don't you get? How else should they have translated it? But you can't say, because you don't know Aramaic. I don't either, but I'm not assuming that I know if this can or cannot be done.

    I'm just suggesting that due to the limitations of the language, translators would logically give the verb a future sense, even though there is no rule in the Aramaic language itself that requires that all 4 kingdoms be actually future. If the 1st kingdom initiates these future kingdoms, it could be included within the domain of the same verb applying to the future kingdoms as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I agree I am not peer reviewing him as a Hebrew/Aramaic scholar. I am peer reviewing him on his commentary. What is required for that? You seem to wish to elevate him beyond a person whose arguments need to be sound (for what a peer review does is consider the basis for ANY claim).
    I have not had anything published.
    I told you--I don't elevate Gill beyond who he is. Since he is distinguished I honor him as such. I don't worship anybody but Jesus. All men are fallible.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If it is the imperfect future tense THEN that means that NOT one of the kingdoms are present, nor past!
    You are actually claiming it is imperfect present tense.
    No, I'm saying I don't know that the Aramaic language has a way of treating a set this way without it sounding like the whole set is future.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    An example of the imperfect future tense in English would be "4 kingdoms will be rising...", yet you do not EVER use this form for an action which started in the past.
    The imperfect present tense example would be "4 kingdoms were rising..."
    English doesn't really have an imperfect form but instead uses the past progressive or forms like "used to" which suggests actions which started but are incomplete.
    However the form used is not a past imperfect but a future imperfect, so it is an action YET to start, and which will finish sometime future to that.
    You're just arguing English rules of grammar--not Aramaic rules of grammar. You say all languages have the same grammar. I can't agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    In conclusion, you prefer to REJECT every single BIBLE translator from throughout history who has translated this sentence as the future tense. After doing so you then are free to make it mean whatever you like. Well if we can change what is said in God's word to a different form how we like then I guess there is no way to have agreement on what His word says.
    Personally I will stick with how EVERY SINGLE translator has translated it and note it is in the FUTURE with NO ASPECT of it meaning in the past.
    UNTIL you choose to accept the evidence of scripture and Bible scholars, there is nothing more to be said.
    You don't understand my argument, brother. That's okay. Go your own way.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,950
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    That's obviously not true since the 4 kingdoms in Dan2 were a set and contained 3 future kingdoms and one presently active, namely Babylon.
    This is a most ridiculous argument, claiming that 4 listed kingdoms are not a set, when that is exactly how they are being presented. They do not have to be mentioned *as a set* to be inferring them as such! You're trying to prove a square is a circle, as far as I'm concerned. And I have no interest in such ridiculous arguments.
    As I was NOT writing about Dan 2 but Dan 7 this argument is empty of value.
    In Dan 2 there is no statement of this statue being future.
    Also there are NOT 4 kingdoms ONLY in Dan 2.

    Each language has its own grammatical rules. Nobody would argue the fact that all languages are communication, if that's what you're suggesting?
    It was YOUR argument I was dealing with. The purpose of GRAMMAR is to easily comprehend the meaning of a sentence and also makes it easier to translate.

    I'm arguing that scholars who claim the verbs to have a *future* aspect are basing their sense on a choice between perfect and imperfect senses. Though the imperfect sense is normally future, it is equally applicable to something that is present and not yet complete.
    In other words, I'm explaining what English translators suggest the application of these verbs to have in an imperfect aspect. And I see no reason that a current kingdom cannot be part of a set of future kingdoms as a currently active one, not yet completed?
    So EVERY SINGLE scholar who translated the Bible is WRONG and ONLY randyk is right?
    Talk about setting yourself up?
    I suggest you don't try arguing something you don't actually understand.
    It is NOT only English translators - but the original Hebrew to Greek translators of the Septuagint.
    How about the Lutheran translation?
    Dan 7:17* Diese vier großen Tiere sind vier Reiche, so auf Erden kommen werden.

    I'm sure I wouldn't agree with Gill on all matters. He just offered an example of where the same situation occurs elsewhere, in his view. You don't have to accept his interpretation, nor do I.
    Sure, but this is Gill's sole support for his argument. He does NOT make the argument you do about the usage of FUTURE, but rather argues about whether though it IS future one part can also be present. So I dealt with the point that his example falls down and actually points to the opposite.

    No, those who translated it in the future sense also allowed for the set to include Babylon as a non-future, and yet current kingdom. In other words, you are assuming that the translators who used the future tense did not themselves view the set as inclusive of a present kingdom?
    Really? All it shows is that the translators saw that the FUTURE tense in English was the CORRECT form to use, which therefore mitigates AGAINST a present kingdom being included as IF the translators HAD considered such an idea then they would have used a DIFFERENT for in English (to abide by English grammar rules).

    Those scholars who translate the text as future are not creating an iron clad rule as you are doing! They utilized the future tense considering the set of 4 kingdoms as *incomplete,* or *imperfect.*
    What about this don't you get? How else should they have translated it? But you can't say, because you don't know Aramaic. I don't either, but I'm not assuming that I know if this can or cannot be done.
    I'm just suggesting that due to the limitations of the language, translators would logically give the verb a future sense, even though there is no rule in the Aramaic language itself that requires that all 4 kingdoms be actually future. If the 1st kingdom initiates these future kingdoms, it could be included within the domain of the same verb applying to the future kingdoms as well.
    They is NO limitation of the language. They could have used a present continuous IF they had thought that was the correct way to translate it. That is a present form with a future continuing from the present (hence its name). However they didn't. No one has.
    They are NOT rewriting the Aramaic, but putting it into English according to the English rules that BEST express what is stated.
    Again why you say "those scholars" when there is NOT a single scholar who translates differently, therefore it is ALL scholars.
    They did NOT utilise the future tense considering it as incomplete, but having already started, for IF they had then they would use another form in English.

    No, I'm saying I don't know that the Aramaic language has a way of treating a set this way without it sounding like the whole set is future.
    And? If you don't KNOW something then find out.

    You're just arguing English rules of grammar--not Aramaic rules of grammar. You say all languages have the same grammar. I can't agree.
    I am NOT arguing English rules of Grammar. I am highlighting that WHEN you TRANSLATE from one language - which uses ONE set of rules of grammar - to another language, you then use the TARGET languages rules of grammar to best express the ORIGINAL meaning.
    When the Hebrew scholars translated the Septuagint from Hebrew (and Aramaic) into Greek they decided that the BEST translation was to use the Greek FUTURE tense. When the scholars translated into English (including Gill) they utilised the English FUTURE tense.
    This means that the scholars understood the FORM and MEANING of the ORIGINAL, when translated into another language should USE the Future tense as this conveys the MEANING.
    This is HOW translation works.

    You don't understand my argument, brother. That's okay. Go your own way.
    Whenever someone disagrees with your view you claim it is that they don't understand.
    I do understand your claim. I am highlighting that it is NOT a valid claim. Just as your original claim about Holy place is NOT a valid claim.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    As I was NOT writing about Dan 2 but Dan 7 this argument is empty of value.
    In Dan 2 there is no statement of this statue being future.
    Also there are NOT 4 kingdoms ONLY in Dan 2.


    It was YOUR argument I was dealing with. The purpose of GRAMMAR is to easily comprehend the meaning of a sentence and also makes it easier to translate.


    So EVERY SINGLE scholar who translated the Bible is WRONG and ONLY randyk is right?
    Talk about setting yourself up?
    I suggest you don't try arguing something you don't actually understand.
    It is NOT only English translators - but the original Hebrew to Greek translators of the Septuagint.
    How about the Lutheran translation?
    Dan 7:17* Diese vier großen Tiere sind vier Reiche, so auf Erden kommen werden.


    Sure, but this is Gill's sole support for his argument. He does NOT make the argument you do about the usage of FUTURE, but rather argues about whether though it IS future one part can also be present. So I dealt with the point that his example falls down and actually points to the opposite.


    Really? All it shows is that the translators saw that the FUTURE tense in English was the CORRECT form to use, which therefore mitigates AGAINST a present kingdom being included as IF the translators HAD considered such an idea then they would have used a DIFFERENT for in English (to abide by English grammar rules).


    They is NO limitation of the language. They could have used a present continuous IF they had thought that was the correct way to translate it. That is a present form with a future continuing from the present (hence its name). However they didn't. No one has.
    They are NOT rewriting the Aramaic, but putting it into English according to the English rules that BEST express what is stated.
    Again why you say "those scholars" when there is NOT a single scholar who translates differently, therefore it is ALL scholars.
    They did NOT utilise the future tense considering it as incomplete, but having already started, for IF they had then they would use another form in English.


    And? If you don't KNOW something then find out.


    I am NOT arguing English rules of Grammar. I am highlighting that WHEN you TRANSLATE from one language - which uses ONE set of rules of grammar - to another language, you then use the TARGET languages rules of grammar to best express the ORIGINAL meaning.
    When the Hebrew scholars translated the Septuagint from Hebrew (and Aramaic) into Greek they decided that the BEST translation was to use the Greek FUTURE tense. When the scholars translated into English (including Gill) they utilised the English FUTURE tense.
    This means that the scholars understood the FORM and MEANING of the ORIGINAL, when translated into another language should USE the Future tense as this conveys the MEANING.
    This is HOW translation works.


    Whenever someone disagrees with your view you claim it is that they don't understand.
    I do understand your claim. I am highlighting that it is NOT a valid claim. Just as your original claim about Holy place is NOT a valid claim.
    no clearly you don't understand. the original languages have meaning understood in those languages that have to be translated into other languages that have a different set of grammatical rules. If the original language we are speaking of does not have the means of expressing 4 kingdoms that represent a future fulfilment that begins in the present, then translations into other languages would not be able to express this without changing the word to word translation.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,950
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    no clearly you don't understand. the original languages have meaning understood in those languages that have to be translated into other languages that have a different set of grammatical rules. If the original language we are speaking of does not have the means of expressing 4 kingdoms that represent a future fulfilment that begins in the present, then translations into other languages would not be able to express this without changing the word to word translation.
    Huh? Are you REALLY trying to tell me that I have no idea how languages work in different languages, and that I don't understand?
    Are you trying to argue that it is NOT possible to translate a phrase or sentence from one language to another language?
    As the original language WAS understood by people who spoke THAT language AND another language - namely Aramaic AND Greek, you are denigrating those who translated the OT as the Septuagint.
    Of course you sometimes lose something in word to word, and is why some people go for dynamic equivalence.
    However what is interesting is that EVERY SINGLE translation that you CAN find ALL express the original meaning as a FUTURE form, whether into English, Greek, or German. I can add Korean for you if you like:
    Dan 7:17* 그 네 큰 짐승은 네 왕이라 세상에 일어날 것이로되*
    Literally "these 4 great beasts 4 kings new arising will be"

    Do I need to go on?
    Aramaic, like Hebrew and Arabic DOES have a method of expressing a FUTURE fulfillment, and NOT a SINGLE translator has had a SINGLE problem doing so.
    Just because the way of expressing it in the future is NOT by the same mechanism as it is done in English, does NOT mean it is still not a FUTURE expression.

    The SIMPLE and INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT is that EVERY SINGLE translation puts Dan 7:17 as a FUTURE expression in the LANGUAGE that it is translated into. Furthermore the CONSTRUCT given is one which is a construct used for the FUTURE in Aramaic. So you are NOT a linguist, yet you put your knowledge ABOVE EVERY SINGLE Bible Translator.
    Well if that is the position you want to claim... who can disagree with you?

    Gill, who I am sure understood this point about grammar, did NOT challenge the FACT of it being a FUTURE construct, so he did NOT try to change the way it was translated into English into a present continuous form, which would then have allowed his claim to be straight forward, as that is the form which would have a present component but with a future aspect also. Instead his sole argument was to say that possibly in idiomatic usage of that time there was a possibility of a future form being used, even with one of them being in the present. His basis for such a usage was based upon Dan 11:2. Without any such usage being found, then his suggestion also falls by the wayside.
    Now IF you could find that such a usage DID occur THEN you would have an argument, but without it we should go with EVERY SINGLE translation there is and ACCEPT that the FUTURE form is used to reference a FUTURE 4 kings. You are basically making special pleading - as you often do - that in this one instance the usage of words do NOT follow the normal meaning because your doctrine requires it doesn't.

    This is in fact the same special pleading you use for holy ground where in your sole instance the usage differs from every single time it is used elsewhere both in scripture and by the ECFs.
    It is special pleading like this which shows the paucity of your doctrine.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Jun 21st 2018, 03:12 PM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: Sep 29th 2017, 08:34 AM
  3. Discussion Five kingdoms in Daniel 2?
    By ForHisglory in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: May 2nd 2015, 11:16 AM
  4. Daniel 7 - visions of kings and kingdoms/leopard rises twice
    By vinsight4u8 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Oct 28th 2011, 03:33 PM
  5. Daniel 7 - kings and kingdoms/visions/ had yet four heads
    By vinsight4u8 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Sep 14th 2011, 03:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •