Posts by Vidqun

i have scanned daniel chapter 9 as it is rendered in english by the hebrew tanakh (masoretic text - mt) and by the greek septuagint (lxx).. http://www.jwstudies.com/daniel_9_in_mt_and_in_lxx.pdf.

read verses 24 to 27 carefully.. doug.

Who has heard of the anointing of kings? See Judges 9:8 (tree king); 1 Sam. 9:16; 1 Sam. 15:1 (Saul); 1 Sam 16:3, 12 (David); 1 Kings 1:34 (Solomon); 1 Kings 19:15 (Hazael of Syria); 1 Kings 19:16 (Jehu); etc.

Now read the book of Daniel. Daniel had a world view in connection with his people and the "beautiful land," Israel. The context of the visions is: Kingship (see Dan. 7 & 8, 11): Messianic kingdom, Dan. 2:44, 45; Someone like a son of man to receive kingship in heaven, Dan. 7:13, 14; Michael to stand up (as king), Dan. 12:1. See how Dan 9 with its “anointed one” fits within such a context.

37

Daniel chapter 9

by Doug Mason in

i have scanned daniel chapter 9 as it is rendered in english by the hebrew tanakh (masoretic text - mt) and by the greek septuagint (lxx).. http://www.jwstudies.com/daniel_9_in_mt_and_in_lxx.pdf.

read verses 24 to 27 carefully.. doug.

Vidqun

Hi Doug, with Paul Tanner, a conservative Christian Bible scholar, I believe Dan. 9 to be the bedrock of divine prophecy. As I told you, for me two things stand out:

One is the fate of the city under discussion. The city is identified as Jerusalem (v. 25). Concerning the city and the sanctuary, the prophecy says: “As for the city and the sanctuary, the people of the coming prince will destroy them” (Dan 9:26 NET). This cannot refer to Antiochus IV Epiphanus and his soldiers. This can only refer to the Roman siege of Jerusalem under Titus in 70 CE. This is how Jesus interpreted the prophecy (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:10; Luk. 21:20-22). He rejected Maccabean interpretation. In fact, even the angel doomed a Maccabean uprising (Dan. 11:14).

Secondly is the phrase “to bring in everlasting righteousness” (Dan 9:24 ESV). This cannot be applied to the Jews or Antiochus IV. However, it fits that which Messianic rule would accomplish (cf. Is. 1:26; 2:1-4; 11:1-10; 32:1; 62:1, 2; etc.). These two instances modern scholars and skeptics fail to explain in a satisfactory way.

We do not know when the final form of the book saw the light. But I have a problem with the date 162 BCE. A few copies of Daniel appear amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated from 200 BCE. And the LXX was translated in the vicinity of 250 BCE. The first history of the Maccabees is dated 100 BCE. That would be a record time for a book to be incorporated in the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures and quoted as scripture. Michael B. Shepherd says the following: “On the other hand, there is nothing in the book itself that demands a date in the second century B.C., the consensus date among critical scholars. The assumption that the book must be a vaticinium ex eventu is not scholarship but dogmatism. Furthermore, such a purely historical view of the book rules out a priori any consideration of the eschatological elements of the book that have palyed a major role throughout the history of interpetation. The appearance at Qumran of eight incomplete manuscripts of Daniel dating from 125 B.C. to A.D 50 should be enough to think twice about the supposedly late date of the book.” See M. B. Shepherd, “Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible,” pp. 64, 65.

37

Daniel chapter 9

by Doug Mason in

i have scanned daniel chapter 9 as it is rendered in english by the hebrew tanakh (masoretic text - mt) and by the greek septuagint (lxx).. http://www.jwstudies.com/daniel_9_in_mt_and_in_lxx.pdf.

read verses 24 to 27 carefully.. doug.

Vidqun

Doug, here’s a more recent English translation of Dan. 9:24-27 (LXX):

A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS), p. 1017.

Old Greek

24 “Seventy weeks have been decided for your people and for the city, Sion: for sin to be consummated and to make iniquities scarce and to blot out iniquities and to comprehend the vision and for everlasting righteousness to be given and for the vision to be consummated and to gladden the holy of holies.

25 And you shall understand and will rejoice and will discover ordinances to respond, and you will build Ierousalem as a city for the Lord.

26 And after seven and seventy and sixty-two weeks, an anointing will be removed and will not be. And a king of nations will demolish the city and the sanctuary along with the anointed one, and his consummation will come with wrath even until the time of consummation. He will be attacked through war.

27 And the covenant will prevail for many, and it will return again and be rebuilt broad and long. And at the consummation of times [even after seven years and seventy times and sixty-two times] [until the time of the consummation of the war even desolation will be removed] [when the covenant prevails for many weeks]. And in half of the week the sacrifice and the libation will cease, and in the temple there will be an abomination of desolations until the consummation of a season, and a consummation will be given for the desolation.”

Theodotion

24 “Seventy weeks have been cut short for your people and for the holy city: for sin to be consummated and to seal sins and to atone for iniquities and to bring everlasting righteousness and to seal vision and prophet and to anoint a holy of holies.

25 And you shall know and understand: from the going forth of the word to respond to and to rebuild Ierousalem until an anointed leader, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, and it will return, and streets and a wall will be built, and the seasons will be emptied out.

26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointing will be destroyed, and there is no judgment in it. And it [Footnote: Or he , antecedent unclear] will destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the leader who is to come. And they will be cut off by a flood, and there will be annihilations to the finish of a shortened war.

27 And it [Footnote: Antecedent unclear] will strengthen a covenant with many, one week, and by half of the week sacrifice and libation will cease, and in the temple there will be an abomination of desolation even until a consummation, and a consummation will be given for the desolation.”

24

Evidence regarding Daniel 11 & Antiochus IV

by Bobcat in

i was doing research on daniel 8 and 11. what i was wondering was if there was any evidence that the jews saw daniel 8 and 11 fulfilled in antiochus iv.. the explained fulfillments (re: antiochus; non-wt explanations) make a lot of sense, but what specifically i was wondering was if the jews (after the time of antiochus iv) saw the daniel prophecies as being fulfilled in him?

or if there are any threads that discuss this, a link would be appreciated.. thank you in advance.. take care.

Vidqun

Two choices, either Daniel was grossly deluded or modern interpretation is wrong:

Modern interpreters base their findings mainly on probability. I believe this is a faulty premise. Here are some of the reasons. As was mentioned, Daniel 11 &12 starts with Cyrus of Persia and ends with the resurrection ( Dan. 10:1 ; 12:13 ). Quite a few chronological gaps occur, which is not unusual of apocalyptic eschatology, especially that of Daniel. Also, the term “latter part of the days” connects Daniel to the rest of the prophets ( Is. 2:2 ; Jer. 23:20 ; 30:24 ; 48:47 ; 49:39 ; Dan. 12:13 ; Hosea 3:5 ; Mic. 4:1 ; cf. Ezek. 38:8 , 16 ) . The term “end time” occurs only in Daniel ( Dan. 8:17 , 19 ; 11:35 , 40 ; 12:4 , 9 ). These refer, not to the end of time, but to a new era in human history. History, as we know it, will come to an end.

Keil & Delitsch give reasons why Antiochus IV Epiphanes is not a good fit for Dan. 11 (as with all my posts, I have removed all Hebrew fonts. These don't transfer well) . Here’s a few examples:

Dan. 11:20:

Finally, of his successor, Seleucus Philopator, to whom v. 20 must refer, if the foregoing verses treat of Antiochus the Great, nothing further is communicated, than that he quum paternis cladibus fractas admodum Syriae opes accepisset, post otiosum nullisque admodum rebus gestis nobilitatum annorum duodecim regnum, was put to death through the treachery of Heliodorus, unius ex purpuratis (Liv. xli. 19, cf. App. Syr. c. 45), and the mission of Heliodorus to Jerusalem to seize the treasures of the temple, which is fabulously described in 2 Macc. 3:4ff. The phrase (shall be destroyed) of this king (within few days) does not harmonize with the facts of his twelve years’ reign.

Dan. 11:22:

The interpretation of the high priest Onias III, who at the commencement of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes was driven from his office by his brother, and afterwards, at the instigation of Menelaus, was murdered by the Syrian governor Andronicus at Daphne near Antioch, 2 Macc. 4:1ff., 33ff. (Rosenmüller, Hitzig, etc.)—this interpretation is not warranted by the facts of history. This murder does not at all relate to the matter before us, not only because the Jewish high priest at Antioch did not sustain the relation of a “prince of the covenant,” but also because the murder was perpetrated without the previous knowledge of Antiochus, and when the matter was reported to him, the murderer was put to death by his command (2 Macc. 4:36–38). Thus also it stands in no connection with the war of Antiochus against Egypt. The words cannot also (with Hävernick, v. Leng., Maurer, Ebrard, Kliefoth) be referred to the Egyptian king Ptolemy Philometor, because history knows nothing of a covenant entered into between this king and Antiochus Epiphanes, but only that soon after the commencement of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes the guardians of the young Philometor demanded Coele-Syria from Antiochus, which Antiochus the Great had promised (see above, p. 792) as a dowry to his daughter Cleopatra, who was betrothed to Ptolemy Philometor, but Antiochus did not deliver it up, and hence a war arose between them.

Dan. 11:36:

This exaltation of this dynasty or line of kings is here introduced, which expresses the self-will and the irresistible might of their proceeding; cf. Dan. 3:16 and 8:4. He shall raise himself above every god, not merely “subjectively in his lofty imagination” (Hitzig), but also by his actions. Every god, not merely the God of Israel, but also the gods of the nations. This does not agree with Antiochus. The ἰσόθεα φρονεῖν ὑπερηφανῶς which is said of him, 2 Macc. 9:12, is not an exalting of himself above every god. “Antiochus was not an ἄθεος; he even wished to render the worship of Zeus universal; and that he once spoiled the temple does not imply his raising himself above every god” (Klief.).

Dan. 11:40-45:

Thus vv. 40–45 cannot apply to Antiochus Epiphanes, but, with most ancient interpreters, these refer to the final enemy of God’s people in the time of the end. Without taking into account the connection, this interpretation is not merely possible, but it is even very natural to refer the suffix and in to one and the same person, namely, to the king who has hitherto been spoken of, and who continues in vv. 40–45 to be the chief subject. But the connection makes this reference impossible. It is true, indeed, that the suffix in refers without doubt to this king, but the suffix in can be referred only to the king of the south named immediately before, who pushes at him, because the king against whom the king of the south pushes, and of whom mention is made vv. 21–39, is not only distinctly designated as the king of the north (vv. 13–21), but also, according to vv. 40–43, he advances from the north against the Holy Land and against Egypt; thus also, according to vv. 40b–43, must be identical with the king of the north. In vv. 40–43 we do not read of a war of the hostile king against the king of the south and the king of the north. The words in which Kliefoth finds indications of this kind are otherwise to be understood.

If we now more closely look into particulars, we find that is not the end of the hostile king, but, as in vv. 27 and 35, the end of the present world-period, in which also, it is true, occurs the end of this king (v. 45). For the figurative expression (shall push), cf. Dan. 8:4. In the word there lies the idea that the king of the south commences the war, makes an aggression against the hostile king. In the second clause the subject is more precisely defined by “the king of the north” for the sake of distinctness, or to avoid ambiguity, from which it thence follows that the suffix in refers to the king of the south. If the subject were not named, then “the king of the south” might have been taken for it in this clause. The words, “with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships,” are an oratorical exemplification of the powerful war-host which the king of the north displayed; for the further statement, “he presses into the countries, overflows and passes over” (as v. 10), does not agree with the idea of a fleet, but refers to land forces. The plur. (into the countries) does not at all agree with the expedition of a Syrian king against Egypt, since between Syria and Egypt there lay one land, Palestine; but it also does not prove that “the south-land and the north-land, the lands of the kings of the south and of the north, are meant” (Klief.), but it is to be explained from this, that the north, from which the angry king comes in his fury against the king of the south, reached far beyond Syria. The king of the north is thought of as the ruler of the distant north.

609

What is spirit, exactly?

by Viviane in

i've always wondered that.

recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.

cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?

Vidqun

Teapot and fossilized dragon fire? Seems like you do have some imagination after all. Regarding matter, they have detected most particles that make up matter, even those that were only predicted by their mathematical equations. But then that would not be enough to keep things together, so they predict the existence of something they call "dark matter" and "dark energy." This is so prevalent that they hope to prove its existence in a California goldmine, where these "particles" would collide with concentrated helium, if I remember correctly.

The Universe is full of matter and the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together. Then came 1998 and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of very distant supernovae that showed that, a long time ago, the Universe was actually expanding more slowly than it is today. So the expansion of the Universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it.

Eventually theorists came up with three sorts of explanations. Maybe it was a result of a long-discarded version of Einstein's theory of gravity, one that contained what was called a "cosmological constant." Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein's theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy.

What is dark energy? More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe. From the NASA Science website.

I cannot say with certainty what God, or the angels/demons are made of, but as above demostrates, there's a lot we do not know. So don't discard a form of energy as an option just yet.

25

Hello

by venting in

jw
friends

just wanted to say hello.

i have alot to say, but i'm not good at typeing.

i'm still in the org.

Vidqun

Welcome! This is the place to say your say or forever hold your peace.

609

What is spirit, exactly?

by Viviane in

i've always wondered that.

recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.

cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?

Vidqun

Here's some repetition for emphasis. It's on p. 11 of the thread. You either missed it or ignored it.

Viviane, here's an attempt to answer your question. At least a partial answer:

Spirit, wind, breeze = forms of energy:

1) spirit, the energy involved, keeping the organism alive (where breathing plays an important part): Spirit is an old-fashioned name, describing the energy needed to sustain life. In scientific terms: ATP > ADP + energy

Wikipedia : Adenosine triphosphate ( ATP ) is a nucleoside triphosphate used in cells as a coenzyme. It is often called the "molecular unit of currency" of intracellular energy transfer. ATP transports chemical energy within cells for metabolism. It is one of the end products of photophosphorylation, cellular respiration, and fermentation and used by enzymes and structural proteins in many cellular processes, including biosynthetic reactions, motility, and cell division (see also Cellular respiration: glycolysis, oxydative phosphorylation, mitochondrial ATP synthase complex).

2) It can also refer to motivational energy of a person, whether internal or external, whether good or bad, e.g., a philanthropist donates money to worthwhile causes or a criminal has the inclination to rape, steal and harm others. The philanthropist is driven by a benevolent spirit (internally). The criminal is driven by a selfish, egotistical spirit (internally). One needs not blame God or the Devil here.

3 ) It can refer to an inanimate force, e.g., breeze, wind. No explanation needed.

4) It can also refer to independent creatures, e.g., angels and demons.

5) It can refer to the substance of God and that which he uses to accomplish his will.

For 4) & 5) one needs a bit of imagination. (I am a great fan of SF, and have an overactive imagination, so that helps.) If physical (single cell or multicellular) organisms can exist, can one rule out that organisms, made out of energy, can exist? What would keep the energy concentrated? I don’t know. Our understanding of natural phenomena is limited. But that does not rule out the possibility that these cannot exist.

An example, “ball lightning,” comes to mind. One of the Czars saw it. People were skeptical of it until scientists, flying from New York to Washington , witnessed a blazing orb drifting down the aisle and disappear through the back of the plane. From then on research began to explain the phenomenon. So unable to explain something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t or cannot exist.

609

What is spirit, exactly?

by Viviane in

i've always wondered that.

recently i asked that question on another thread and didn't really get ananswer.

cofty made an excellent point that we often hear what it isn't, but that really isn't useful.. so, what is it?

Vidqun

It's a suggestion and it should be in your summary. You did remember to include alcohol, which was a joke.