The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by spin »

Bernard Muller wrote:to spin,
Pure eisegesis.
You can use the same word for your theory about Jeshua, because he received crowns on his head, becoming a prince/ruler.
Use your own vocabulary, Bernard. You're having difficulty with mine. The text gives a coronation with only one person crowned. God speaks and says that the branch'll be ruler. Only person present is Yeshua. That allows you to forget the text and insinuate that someone else is ruler. My appraoch uses the evidence yours your desire.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Once again you misunderstand. This basic issue is stylistic and matters of style tend to manifest in non-narrative discourse. It was not a rule that temporal phrases in parallel clauses are brought together. However, it is a feature on Hebrew literature, so when you find two such phrases you would not put them together as part of the one clause.
I provided the closest passage to your alleged Dan 9:25 parallelisms, with consecutive durations, and the so-called parallelism was different.
There was no parallel at all. Your continued failures to be relevant are hard to cope with. You are just going to keep responding with nonsense till you die of exhaustion rather than demonstrate some knowledge of the language material you are flailing with.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Syntactic chiasmus is frequent in Hebrew

Even if they would be frequent, they are not the rule.
It certainly explains what we see. You have such a stupid alternative to the structure in Dan 9:25 that you would normally be ashamed. You claim that the reader is supposed to add the two durations together with no indication in the text or precedent in the literature.

:tomato:
Bernard Muller wrote:
That is what we see in 9:25
from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks,
and sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
I already explained about how the author justified of seven and sixty-two (seven is God's number and sixty-two is the alleged age of the alleged Darius the Mede when he allegedly conquered Babylon).
That eisegesis is as much of a joke as the local shepherd, who was passing where Daniel was writing, having sixty-two sheep and seven sons.
Bernard Muller wrote:All of that to make sixty-nine look like part of a God's plan. And the following is legitimate, of course a bit strange, because it is part on a prophetic oracle spoken by a demigod: "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks."
See also "a time, times, and an half" in Dan 12:7 & 7:25.
And "MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN" in Daniel 5:25.
It shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
Not all new clauses start with a 'waw' in Hebrew.
Here again, note T.J.Meek:

In Hebrew originally, as all scholars know, there was no punctuation of any sort and no division of the consonants into words or of the words into phrases and clauses. Accordingly there was nothing to indicate the beginning of a new clause except an introductory particle and this in most cases had to be waw. (JBL 64.1 p.2)

Now within a verse find me an example where a clause is not linked with a particle such as waw. I'll save you the bother: you won't. The clause about stuff built in 9:25 starts with "and sixty-two weeks", ie the duration given for the state of having been built, before the final stage in the prophecy.
Bernard Muller wrote:Not all 'waw' start a new clause.
Who claimed they did?... I guess you've learned something at least.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Working from the Hebrew without the English confusion, you wouldn't conceive of adding the week and the half week together in 9:27.
No, because the Hebrew says "half of the week", so that "half of the week" is part of the week mentioned earlier.
But you don't let things like grammar get in your way in 9:25 where the syntactical structure is the same. Clause + duration + "and" + duration + clause. There is no reason in the text to read these two complex sentences differently one from the other. The "the" is no escape: would you have tried to add them together had there been no "the"?? You have been gulled by christian literature to add the durations together.
Bernard Muller wrote:Now about your implied "for" and your weeks of years in "Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time." (NRSV)
First, the "for" implies it took 434 years to rebuilt Jerusalem
Englishizing again. Your claim is yet again is nonsense. The verb is perfect, ie finished and complete. It is not being built but in the state of "built".
Bernard Muller wrote:(but I think it's about the temple here: streets are not considered open spaces and the Hebrew word is singular; plaza or square is more appropriate). Regardless, that's a long time to rebuild a city or a temple.
Second, that would happen after the seven "weeks", that is for you 49 years after the alleged decree (the temple was rebuilt 23 years later).
Again you are going to say that by "Daniel" having no clue whatsoever about the dating of the history of the temple. And he was inventing all these time intervals.
Yup. Darius the Mede, King Belshazzar, four Persian kings. There is no sign of an understanding of a historical past. Except for the last week in 9:27, the durations are extremely rough approximations that don't require checking, as there would be no way for listeners to check them.
Bernard Muller wrote:
No! First 110 days were added to the shortest duration (8:14, 1150 days) to make 3.5 years or 1260 days, which is stated three times in the visions. Then 30 days were added in 12:11 and finally another 45 days were "discovered", added in the book at 12:12.
He would be crazy for "Daniel" first to write that the sacrifices would resume after 1267 days (3.5 years), then 1150 days, then 1290 days, then 1335 days. People then reading that right after the events would laugh and treat the book as garbage, if the time of cessation of sacrifices was known then (which I think was 1150 days), even if it was 1335 days. "Daniel" could not have been so stupid.
Who had the ability to read the text? One estimate of literacy rate approximately 200 years after the time was ~2% (data from memory of an article by Ian Young on the subject). The person who read the text to listeners had all the control of the information presented.
Bernard Muller wrote:The solution of the problem: the "half the week" does not mean 3.5 years.
1290 days is when the apostate Jews and soldiers in the nearby fortress reclaimed the temple.
1335 days is about when these apostate Jews and soldiers were chased back into the fortress and Jewish sacrifices resumed again in the temple.
And I got support from Josephus & 1 Maccabees:
Josephus' Ant., XII, IX, 3a. "At that time [163 B.C.E.] it was that the garrison in the citadel of Jerusalem, with the Jewish renegades, did a great deal of harm to the Jews: for the soldiers that were in that garrison rushed out upon the sudden, and destroyed such as were going to the temple in order to offer their sacrifices, for this citadel adjoined to and overlooked the temple. When these misfortunes had often happened to them, ..."
1Maccabees: 1:33-36 "Then they built up the City of David with a high, massive wall and strong towers, and it became their citadel. There they installed a sinful race, perverse men, who fortified themselves inside it, storing up weapons and provisions, and depositing there the plunder they had collected from Jerusalem. And they became a great threat. The citadel became an ambush against the sanctuary, and a wicked adversary to Israel at all times."
The Tamid was restored at the end of 164 BCE. The 1290 days expressly refers to it. The 1335 has no specific extra context.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to spin,
Nonsense. You are transparently bullshitting. The text gives you all the weeks by number. You don't impose them to suit your theory. It gives you seven (שבע), then sixty-two (ששים ושנים) and then one (אחד) week, so that you can count them out like any other reader. You're off with the fairies if you seriously believe this nonsense approach you just advocated
So what week would come after the sixty-nine weeks? When do you think the events described in Daniel 9:26 happened: "... shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; ...". Would it not be the seventieth week?
There was a reason we looked at the inaccuracy of Daniel and that has slipped off the edge of your memory. You are trying to sell the notion that people who talk about Darius the Mede and Belshazzar as king or there being four Persian kings has any idea of real history, such that they can tell you exactly how many years passed from the time Cyrus gave permission to rebuild to the authorial present. This is the same culture that gave you Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnezzar or the spelling that gives us Nebuchadnezzar rather than Nebuchadrezzar (a blunder that shows a temporal dissociation). We get Greek musical instruments in the court of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 3:7). This stuff is neither history nor in any way accurate, yet you insist that the seventy weeks is ultra-accurate. That's off the planet.
The author of Daniel part 1 was not the same as the one of Daniel part 2.
To "Daniel" of part 1, we owe Darius the Mede, Belshasar as king (a tiny inaccuracy), Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnezzar, a misspelling of one character for Nebuchadrezzar (a small mistake), and the Greek musical instruments. BTW, I do not see any error about time intervals.
Darius the Mede made it in Daniel-part 2, most likely for homogenization of the two parts of 'Daniel', as for "Cyrus" being inserted in part 1 for the same reason.
So about the four Persians kings in Daniel part 2. Do you really think the Jews in 167 BCE thought that Darius I or Xerxes I was defeated by Alexander the Great? If it was the case, that would make your 490 years pointing at about 180 CE to 200 CE.
And "Daniel" only said Darius I or Xerxes I stirred things up with the Greeks.
They are essentially unimportant, there only to show the past, present and future are in God's hands. Do you think that anyone of the period would know that the dating was not accurate??
I think they were as important as the events that Daniel of part 2 is describing from Alexander the Great up to Antiochus IV' times. Why would he go into that period with accurate details and at the same time issue trashy time intervals?
And yes, educated hellenized Jews of the period would know about the dating of their temple history. And don't say "accurate". The dating based on your weeks of years is beyond inaccuracy, it is very wrong.
Sixty-nine sevens (36) & seventies (33) does not work. It's like the Ptolemaic universe
Seventy "seven" (= שֶׁבַע) as written in the years starting at Cyrus' first year does work and points to 167 BCE.
I've already discussed this. The datings are indications that an end was foreseeable. All it needed was a couple of victories for one to see the possibility of an end in sight. Give it a few campaign seasons and that allows a guesstimate.
And what make you think the resistance of the Maccabees had shown signs of success when most of Daniel part two was written. Earlier you accepted that:
Bernard Muller wrote:
I agree that most of Daniel part 2 was written before the death of Antiochus and the restart of Jewish sacrifices (It was written after the massacres of Jews in caves by fire, and before the resistance got somewhat successful). But when that happened the author made insertions and additions at the end.
OK.
(my bolding)

And why would "Daniel" risk making estimates? And in a precise number of days (1150 & 1290) when a vaguely expressed amount of time would have suffice? And his trick was to make prophecies on facts to happen AFTER these facts occurred.

Anyway it is clear the big future expectation was for archangel Michael to make things right for the Jews (Dan 12:1-4), not the reconsecration of the temple (Dan 9:26). See also Dan 11:33-35:
"And those among the people who are wise shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder, for some days.
When they fall, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery;
and some of those who are wise shall fall, to refine and to cleanse them and to make them white, until the time of the end, for it is yet for the time appointed."

Successful resistance and reconsecration of the temple must have come as a surprise for him.
There is no comparison. You are not looking at a word analogous to "half".
Why are you narrowing the goal posts so much that nothing can pass through? I demonstrated a "at" or "in" can be implied in front of a unit of time, but with the "at" or "in" becomes a point of time.
here are prepositions in both Jdg 16:3 (עד־חצי + בחצי) and Ruth 3:8 (בחצי)
So what? I demonstrated these prepositions can be implied. Implied or existing amounts to the same thing. This is what you do for your implied "for".

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to spin,
Use your own vocabulary, Bernard. You're having difficulty with mine. The text gives a coronation with only one person crowned. God speaks and says that the branch'll be ruler. Only person present is Yeshua. That allows you to forget the text and insinuate that someone else is ruler. My appraoch uses the evidence yours your desire.
a) I do not see any thing wrong if God, through Zechariah, declares to Jeshua that another man called Branch is expected to be a ruler, even if there is only Jeshua present. And I think if we were dealing with a coronation of some sort, there would be other Jewish VIPs present as witnesses and to instill some decorum and with some words saying that Jeshua is crowned as prince. But we have none of that.
b) Branch, according to Jeremiah (23:5 & 33:15), refers to a descendant of David (which fits Zerubbabel), but not Jeshua, a high priest.
c) The one expected to rebuilt the temple is Zerubbabel (Zec 4:9 <=> 6:12-13)
d) The dating of your so-called coronation is wrong by a huge lot: 19 years <=> 49 years
e) Why are several crowns needed to anoint somebody to be something?
f) Jeshua does not get to keep the crowns, the symbol of his promotion. Instead they are given to the care of other Jews "for a memorial in the temple".
There was no parallel at all
My goal was to demonstrate that in one case, when we would expect your parallelism, your parallelism was not here. Always changing the goal post. Why would I be expected to find out your kind of parallelism? That's not my job.
It certainly explains what we see. You have such a stupid alternative to the structure in Dan 9:25 that you would normally be ashamed. You claim that the reader is supposed to add the two durations together with no indication in the text or precedent in the literature
Even if that explained what you see, that does not mean you are right. No my structure is not stupid. That's not my fault if "Daniel" chose to use odd phrases like "seven weeks/sevens and sixty-two weeks/sevens", "a time, times, and an half" and "MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN"
There is a first for everything and our "Daniel" was very innovative.
Now within a verse find me an example where a clause is not linked with a particle such as waw. I'll save you the bother: you won't. The clause about stuff built in 9:25 starts with "and sixty-two weeks", ie the duration given for the state of having been built, before the final stage in the prophecy.
I found: Dan 9:1, 9:2, 9:5, 9:7, 9:8, 9:9, 9:16, 9:18, 9:19 all with no waw starting a clause.
But you don't let things like grammar get in your way in 9:25 where the syntactical structure is the same. Clause + duration + "and" + duration + clause. There is no reason in the text to read these two complex sentences differently one from the other. The "the" is no escape: would you have tried to add them together had there been no "the"?? You have been gulled by christian literature to add the durations together.
There is one good reason: the year of the so-called coronation happens at 30 years less than your 49 years.
And your Jeshua is never described as a prince/ruler.
I don't see what is "the" you are talking about.
Englishizing again. Your claim is yet again is nonsense. The verb is perfect, ie finished and complete. It is not being built but in the state of "built".
OK, so, looking at the RSV "Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time."
The Hebrew, according to http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/dan9.pdf apparently would say "she shall return and she is built [with] square and salient"
So the temple or Jerusalem shall exist again. But if we add in front "Then/and for sixty-two weeks" we have "and for sixty-two weeks, she shall return". That does not make sense. The return (as built) of the temple/Jerusalem would not take 434 years. However with only ""She shall return and she is built [with] square and salient and in constraint of the eras" during the 69 weeks/sevens period makes sense.
as there would be no way for listeners to check them.
Maybe just not the listeners, but also the readers, the educated ones and for some likely knowing also Greek.
Certainly "Daniel" took a lot of care describing what happened after Alexander the Great. He did not think here, oh, my audience will not know about that, so I can tell them all kind of stories.
Who had the ability to read the text? One estimate of literacy rate approximately 200 years after the time was ~2% (data from memory of an article by Ian Young on the subject). The person who read the text to listeners had all the control of the information presented.
If Daniel took the time to write a book, he knew his effort would be read, maybe by a few only, but also by some smart & learned Jews enough to know about the history (with relative dating) of the temple.
And certainly, he would arrange for that book to be "discovered" right after it was written.
And even some listeners would have find the 490 years or 490 weeks were out of whack.
I suppose the anonymous author (if no other had done it yet) would cleverly fake to study the problem and then suggest the weeks might mean sevens. Then the scheme would be "discovered" by others, and fitting very well, and the book taken very seriously, making the remaining Jews hanging to their faith because soon Michael will intervene in their favor.
The Tamid was restored at the end of 164 BCE. The 1290 days expressly refers to it. The 1335 has no specific extra context.
So why the author would mention these 1335 days, Blessed is he who waits and comes to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days. Dan 12:12, implying a happy news to come then, if not the Jewish sacrifices starting again.
However, in the preceding verse "And from the time that the continual burnt offering is taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days."
The 1290 days starts when the offering are interrupted and finishes at a desolation (again). That can only mean that the Jewish sacrifices were interrupted by the soldiers and renegade ex-Jews from the fortress some 140 days (1290 - 1150) after they were restarted after 1150 days. And these sacrifices were re-established 45 days later (1335 - 1290) (that's the happy news).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by spin »

Bernard Muller wrote:to spin,
Use your own vocabulary, Bernard. You're having difficulty with mine. The text gives a coronation with only one person crowned. God speaks and says that the branch'll be ruler. Only person present is Yeshua. That allows you to forget the text and insinuate that someone else is ruler. My appraoch uses the evidence yours your desire.
a) I do not see any thing wrong if God, through Zechariah, declares to Jeshua that another man called Branch is expected to be a ruler, even if there is only Jeshua present. And I think if we were dealing with a coronation of some sort, there would be other Jewish VIPs present as witnesses and to instill some decorum and with some words saying that Jeshua is crowned as prince. But we have none of that.
b) Branch, according to Jeremiah (23:5 & 33:15), refers to a descendant of David (which fits Zerubbabel), but not Jeshua, a high priest.
This is not Jeremiah, but Zechariah. You cannot impute things from another text when the passage we are looking at does not provide you with the materials to do so.
c) The one expected to rebuilt the temple is Zerubbabel (Zec 4:9 <=> 6:12-13)
All dealt with before. It is your eisegesis. You have got no further on this than your earlier attempts. You've shown no-one else present to be in the coronation scene who could be "beheld" as referred to by God as the branch and the ruler than the guy that got crowned.
Bernard Muller wrote:d) The dating of your so-called coronation is wrong by a huge lot: 19 years <=> 49 years
Trying to be ultra-accurate again, when it is plainly obvious that your sources just are not accurate at all.
Bernard Muller wrote:e) Why are several crowns needed to anoint somebody to be something?
"Several"?

:tomato:
Bernard Muller wrote:f) Jeshua does not get to keep the crowns, the symbol of his promotion. Instead they are given to the care of other Jews "for a memorial in the temple".
You assume that anyone crowned gets to keep the crown as personal property. That is just plain phooey. You are simply trying to rewrite the text.
Bernard Muller wrote:
There was no parallel at all
My goal was to demonstrate that in one case, when we would expect your parallelism, your parallelism was not here. Always changing the goal post. Why would I be expected to find out your kind of parallelism? That's not my job.
Failed. You need to show the relevance of what you are trying to use as a parallel. You simply switched genre.
Bernard Muller wrote:
It certainly explains what we see. You have such a stupid alternative to the structure in Dan 9:25 that you would normally be ashamed. You claim that the reader is supposed to add the two durations together with no indication in the text or precedent in the literature
Even if that explained what you see, that does not mean you are right. No my structure is not stupid. That's not my fault if "Daniel" chose to use odd phrases like "seven weeks/sevens and sixty-two weeks/sevens", "a time, times, and an half" and "MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN"
There is a first for everything and our "Daniel" was very innovative.
I agree the text is innovative, but your reasoning doesn't back up the view. A few unrelated phrases from Daniel do not support your assertion. You've shown no relevance for repeating "MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN". The supplied interpretation shows it is not relevant, nor does the fact that it is a list of weights. Neither example reflects the syntactic context from which you have removed "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks", so you cannot expect them to be of any use.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Now within a verse find me an example where a clause is not linked with a particle such as waw. I'll save you the bother: you won't. The clause about stuff built in 9:25 starts with "and sixty-two weeks", ie the duration given for the state of having been built, before the final stage in the prophecy.
I found: Dan 9:1, 9:2, 9:5, 9:7, 9:8, 9:9, 9:16, 9:18, 9:19 all with no waw starting a clause.
Perhaps if you had read what I said, you wouldn't have wasted your time again. You didn't note that "within a verse". I even underlined it to grab your attention. Going off half-cocked means that you are likely to blunder. If you think you understand the issue now, please find me an example WITHIN A VERSE that features a clause started without a particle like waw.
Bernard Muller wrote:
But you don't let things like grammar get in your way in 9:25 where the syntactical structure is the same. Clause + duration + "and" + duration + clause. There is no reason in the text to read these two complex sentences differently one from the other. The "the" is no escape: would you have tried to add them together had there been no "the"?? You have been gulled by christian literature to add the durations together.
There is one good reason: the year of the so-called coronation happens at 30 years less than your 49 years.
Of course Zechariah should have read Daniel, to be ultra-accurate!!
Bernard Muller wrote:And your Jeshua is never described as a prince/ruler.
The only one crowned to be referred to by God as ruler. You just don't want to read the text because it shows you are simply wrong.
Bernard Muller wrote:I don't see what is "the" you are talking about.
It is the "the" that you tried to use in your prior argument.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Englishizing again. Your claim is yet again is nonsense. The verb is perfect, ie finished and complete. It is not being built but in the state of "built".
OK, so, looking at the RSV "Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time."
The Hebrew, according to http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/dan9.pdf apparently would say "she shall return and she is built [with] square and salient"
So the temple or Jerusalem shall exist again. But if we add in front "Then/and for sixty-two weeks" we have "and for sixty-two weeks, she shall return". That does not make sense.
That's because once again you are caught englishizing. English speaking people have enough problems understanding how their own language works to be able to analyze other languages, so when you complain that something doesn't make sense, I believe you in your plight. The verb שוב means many things which center around returning to a previous state or location, which include "restore", "repair", "put back", etc, beside "return". Why you chose "return" doesn't make much sense, given that towns don't go anywhere. I guess it's because that's what your literal translation provided you and so you were derailed by it. I have asked you to stop playing with things you know nothing about. There is nothing strange with the notion that Jerusalem will remain restored and built for a long period.
Bernard Muller wrote:The return (as built) of the temple/Jerusalem would not take 434 years. However with only ""She shall return and she is built [with] square and salient and in constraint of the eras" during the 69 weeks/sevens period makes sense.
as there would be no way for listeners to check them.
Maybe just not the listeners, but also the readers, the educated ones and for some likely knowing also Greek.
This part of the text was written in Hebrew for a particular situation in Judea where literacy was exceptionally low, so you are going off in a tangent. Daniel lost its currency soon after the historical moment it was dealing with passed. Antiochus who filled much of that part was dead, so the text was no longer relevant.
Bernard Muller wrote:Certainly "Daniel" took a lot of care describing what happened after Alexander the Great. He did not think here, oh, my audience will not know about that, so I can tell them all kind of stories.
Actually, the writers describe very little to do with Alexander, but know a lot about Antiochus III & IV. Two kings get 30 verses. The other nine get six. You are not talking about the Daniel in the Hebrew bible.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Who had the ability to read the text? One estimate of literacy rate approximately 200 years after the time was ~2% (data from memory of an article by Ian Young on the subject). The person who read the text to listeners had all the control of the information presented.
If Daniel took the time to write a book, he knew his effort would be read, maybe by a few only, but also by some smart & learned Jews enough to know about the history (with relative dating) of the temple.
Just eisegesis.
Bernard Muller wrote:And certainly, he would arrange for that book to be "discovered" right after it was written.
It was probably going through revisions after it was "discovered".
Bernard Muller wrote:And even some listeners would have find the 490 years or 490 weeks were out of whack.
How many centuries later? If you read the Seder Olam, its "historical" information for the period isn't much better.
Bernard Muller wrote:I suppose the anonymous author (if no other had done it yet) would cleverly fake to study the problem and then suggest the weeks might mean sevens. Then the scheme would be "discovered" by others, and fitting very well, and the book taken very seriously, making the remaining Jews hanging to their faith because soon Michael will intervene in their favor.
The Tamid was restored at the end of 164 BCE. The 1290 days expressly refers to it. The 1335 has no specific extra context.
So why the author would mention these 1335 days, Blessed is he who waits and comes to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days. Dan 12:12, implying a happy news to come then, if not the Jewish sacrifices starting again.
However, in the preceding verse "And from the time that the continual burnt offering is taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days."
The 1290 days starts when the offering are interrupted and finishes at a desolation (again). That can only mean that the Jewish sacrifices were interrupted by the soldiers and renegade ex-Jews from the fortress some 140 days (1290 - 1150) after they were restarted after 1150 days. And these sacrifices were re-established 45 days later (1335 - 1290) (that's the happy news).
My guess is that with the death of Antiochus (learned after the rededication and restart of the Tamid), it's efficacy no longer current, Daniel is surreptitiously allowed to fade into the undergrowth.

The process appears to go thus:

Reference
in Daniel
Progress from the cessation of the Tamid & the installation of the abominationAdjustment to prediction due to changing circumstancesDuration from stoppage
8.Things are going well. Predict a short span till restoration, covering time past and what's left.-1150 days.
7, 9, 12:7.Things are going well, but we need to adjustadd 110 days. 3.5 years or1260 days.
12:11Although things are going well and we're nearly at the end, it's not resolved,so add 30 days till we can remove the abomination and restore the Tamid.1290 days.
12:12Oh, look what I noticed in the book: We have to persevere!another 45 days and that's it.1335 days.


Bernard Muller wrote:to spin,
Nonsense. You are transparently bullshitting. The text gives you all the weeks by number. You don't impose them to suit your theory. It gives you seven (שבע), then sixty-two (ששים ושנים) and then one (אחד) week, so that you can count them out like any other reader. You're off with the fairies if you seriously believe this nonsense approach you just advocated
So what week would come after the sixty-nine weeks? When do you think the events described in Daniel 9:26 happened: "... shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; ...". Would it not be the seventieth week?
The text specifies the seventieth week in 9:27. After seven weeks, followed by sixty-two weeks, 9:27 gives the final one week.
Bernard Muller wrote:
There was a reason we looked at the inaccuracy of Daniel and that has slipped off the edge of your memory. You are trying to sell the notion that people who talk about Darius the Mede and Belshazzar as king or there being four Persian kings has any idea of real history, such that they can tell you exactly how many years passed from the time Cyrus gave permission to rebuild to the authorial present. This is the same culture that gave you Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnezzar or the spelling that gives us Nebuchadnezzar rather than Nebuchadrezzar (a blunder that shows a temporal dissociation). We get Greek musical instruments in the court of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 3:7). This stuff is neither history nor in any way accurate, yet you insist that the seventy weeks is ultra-accurate. That's off the planet.
The author of Daniel part 1 was not the same as the one of Daniel part 2.
To "Daniel" of part 1, we owe Darius the Mede,
Wrong is wrong, regardless of the source. And not correcting it suggests they didn't know any better.
Bernard Muller wrote:Belshasar as king (a tiny inaccuracy),
So wrong is not wrong unless it fits your idea of a big wrong! While claiming ultra-accuracy, you're also claiming that it isn't ultra-accurate.
Bernard Muller wrote:Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnezzar, a misspelling of one character for Nebuchadrezzar (a small mistake), and the Greek musical instruments. BTW, I do not see any error about time intervals.
Darius the Mede made it in Daniel-part 2, most likely for homogenization of the two parts of 'Daniel', as for "Cyrus" being inserted in part 1 for the same reason.
So about the four Persians kings in Daniel part 2. Do you really think the Jews in 167 BCE thought that Darius I or Xerxes I was defeated by Alexander the Great? If it was the case, that would make your 490 years pointing at about 180 CE to 200 CE.
The text says exactly that there were three kings after Darius the Mede and a fourth before Alexander. Why not ask the writers to be more accurate next time?
Bernard Muller wrote:And "Daniel" only said Darius I or Xerxes I stirred things up with the Greeks.
No, there was no mention of "Darius I" or "Xerxes I", no first anyones, just Darius and Xerxes (Ahasuerus).
Bernard Muller wrote:
They are essentially unimportant, there only to show the past, present and future are in God's hands. Do you think that anyone of the period would know that the dating was not accurate??
I think they were as important as the events that Daniel of part 2 is describing from Alexander the Great up to Antiochus IV' times. Why would he go into that period with accurate details and at the same time issue trashy time intervals?
And yes, educated hellenized Jews of the period would know about the dating of their temple history. And don't say "accurate". The dating based on your weeks of years is beyond inaccuracy, it is very wrong.
No new content.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Sixty-nine sevens (36) & seventies (33) does not work. It's like the Ptolemaic universe
Seventy "seven" (= שֶׁבַע) as written in the years starting at Cyrus' first year does work and points to 167 BCE.
That's just plain wrong, given the vowel pointings. The vowels make seven and seventy quite different sounding words, roughly "shebba" and "shibbim". Your aim though is to cover up the differences and try to get sevens and seventies as close as possible to prop up the dead theory.
Bernard Muller wrote:
I've already discussed this. The datings are indications that an end was foreseeable. All it needed was a couple of victories for one to see the possibility of an end in sight. Give it a few campaign seasons and that allows a guesstimate.
And what make you think the resistance of the Maccabees had shown signs of success when most of Daniel part two was written. Earlier you accepted that:
Bernard Muller wrote:
I agree that most of Daniel part 2 was written before the death of Antiochus and the restart of Jewish sacrifices (It was written after the massacres of Jews in caves by fire, and before the resistance got somewhat successful). But when that happened the author made insertions and additions at the end.
OK.
(my bolding)
On what other grounds than pointing success do you think the writers might make specific prophecies?
Bernard Muller wrote:And why would "Daniel" risk making estimates? And in a precise number of days (1150 & 1290) when a vaguely expressed amount of time would have suffice? And his trick was to make prophecies on facts to happen AFTER these facts occurred.
Risk? It is my understanding that the writers were communicating to the people doing the fighting, following the victories. Stuff written after the resumption of the Tamid and the removal of the abomination would be irrelevant to the text. We are in a period before those events had taken place. Afterwards, the villain was dead. The temple cleansed. It was a new context. There were new players and new circumstances.
Bernard Muller wrote:Anyway it is clear the big future expectation was for archangel Michael to make things right for the Jews (Dan 12:1-4), not the reconsecration of the temple (Dan 9:26). See also Dan 11:33-35:
"And those among the people who are wise shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder, for some days.
When they fall, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery;
and some of those who are wise shall fall, to refine and to cleanse them and to make them white, until the time of the end, for it is yet for the time appointed."

Successful resistance and reconsecration of the temple must have come as a surprise for him.
Dan 7:26 marks the end of the first vision with the end of the dominion of Antiochus. Dan 8:14 was about the restoration of the sanctuary and, 8:25, the destruction of Antiochus. 9:27 is until the desolator Antiochus gets it heralding the end of the abomination and the stoppage. 11:36ff goes into la-la-land and no-one would want that seen again. You might play with Dan 12:7 "the shattering of the people comes to an end". Neither 12:11 or 12:12 clarify what the end is, so more wiggle room, but those are t he last five verses of the book. The rest is out of date.
Bernard Muller wrote:
There is no comparison. You are not looking at a word analogous to "half".
Why are you narrowing the goal posts so much that nothing can pass through? I demonstrated a "at" or "in" can be implied in front of a unit of time, but with the "at" or "in" becomes a point of time.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. You are making a false comparison. You want to turn "half" into "halfway" without any reason to do so. No evidence. Just your desired outcome to fulfill. You go off and try to compare "half" with "night", which makes no sense at all. (Comparing "week" with "night", "day" or "hour" would be fair.) In every instance in the Hebrew bible, when חצי is translated as midst (halfway) it is determined by a preposition. You cannot find contrary examples, so you branch out in a stream of consciousness manner and say nothing useful.
Bernard Muller wrote:
here are prepositions in both Jdg 16:3 (עד־חצי + בחצי) and Ruth 3:8 (בחצי)
So what? I demonstrated these prepositions can be implied. Implied or existing amounts to the same thing. This is what you do for your implied "for".
Utter rubbish, Bernard. You messed up because you can't read Hebrew at all and couldn't see that your examples, the ones I refer to here above, were spurious.

Recap:

1. The seventy weeks is broken into symbolic periods and one should not expect ultra-accuracy when the writers didn't know much about things sixty years before their time. The historical indications in the Danielic framework for the visions is inaccurate: Darius the Mede, King Belshazzar and only four kings of Persia! The writers know more about the last sixty years than the previous 400.

2. There is no substantial reason for changing "weeks" into "sevens", despite the fact that they can look the same in Hebrew. Counting "sevens" and "seventies" results in only sixty-nine sevens/seventies, plus one week. Counting the stated weeks produces 7 + 62 + 1 = 70 weeks, which accords with Dan 9:24. Counting sevens and seventies doesn't work, yielding 69 sevens (36)/seventies (33) and one week, so you insert an unstated "seven"/"seventy" after the 62 weeks and before the one week in an effort to make a seventieth seven/seventy and save your theory. The writers didn't count numerals because they didn't have any, so you fantasize on indications drawn in the sand without evidence or in fact any hint to justify even contemplating it.

3. Reading Dan 9:25 naturally for its syntax, we find that after seven weeks there is someone who is both prince and priest, a person probably presented in Zech 6:9-13. It was in his time that the temple and the city was built. For 62 weeks Jerusalem would remain built, but at the end of that week (9:26) Jerusalem would be taken over by the coming prince. In the one remaining week many will make a covenant will the Seleucids (see 1 Macc 1:11) and half the week sacrifices will stop and an abomination will be set up in the temple.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to spin,
Of course you are dead wrong about Jeshua being the anointed prince/ruler in Dan 9:25, for many reasons I already explained.
b) Branch, according to Jeremiah (23:5 & 33:15), refers to a descendant of David (which fits Zerubbabel), but not Jeshua, a high priest.
This is not Jeremiah, but Zechariah. You cannot impute things from another text when the passage we are looking at does not provide you with the materials to do so
So what? "Daniel' knew about 'Jeremiah' for sure (Dan 9:2). So why would Zechariah not get his Branch from 'Jeremiah'?
And coming from you: you said that "Daniel" was inspired for his week(s) of years from a verse of Leviticus. So why not Zachariah did the same from verses of 'Jeremiah'.
"Several"?
What is your problem with "several"?
I found: Dan 9:1, 9:2, 9:5, 9:7, 9:8, 9:9, 9:16, 9:18, 9:19 all with no waw starting a clause.
Perhaps if you have read what I said, you wouldn't have wasted your time again. You didn't note that "within a verse". I even underlined it to grab your attention. Going off half-cocked means that you are likely to blunder. If you think you understand the issue now, please find me an example WITHIN A VERSE that features a clause
I looked also inside the verses. So what did I miss?
Of course Zechariah should have read Daniel, to be ultra-accurate!!
'Daniel' came later than 'Zechariah'. "Daniel" 2 probably knew about 'Zechariah'. But where would he have seen Jeshua as a prince, and also 49 years after the decree: nowhere.
The only one crowned to be referred to by God as ruler.
Sweet dream! The one called the Branch is to get royal honor if he rebuilds the temple"
"... Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; ..."
(Zec 6:12b-13a)
That name, obviously Zerubbabel (according to Zech 4:9 "The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; ..."
And in Zec 3:8, the servant named Branch is not Joshua: "Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH."
The verb שוב means many things which center around returning to a previous state or location, which include "restore", "repair", "put back", etc, beside "return".
It does not look that "restore" or "repair" would be a normal translation for שוב.
I took "return" straight from here: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/dan9.pdf
The verb is Qual, imperfect (an action, process or condition which is incomplete).

This statement (as you interprete it in Dan 9:25b) also implies that in the first 49 years after the decree of Cyrus, nothing was done pertaining to the ruined city. Once again, "Daniel" was totally ignorant of the situation during Cyrus' reign! And "Daniel" did not read Isaiah 44:28:
"who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfil all my purpose'; saying of Jerusalem, 'She shall be built,' and of the temple, 'Your foundation shall be laid.'"
(written after the facts, of course: the author knew that only the foundation of the temple will be laid during Cyrus' reign!)
This part of the text was written in Hebrew for a particular situation in Judea where literacy was exceptionally low, so you are going off in a tangent. Daniel lost its currency soon after the historical moment it was dealing with passed. Antiochus who filled much of that part was dead, so the text was no longer relevant
Prophetic texts were meant to be relevant right after they were written. These texts were meant to be read (by a few) and listened by many.
Actually, the writers describe very little to do with Alexander, but know a lot about Antiochus III & IV. Two kings get 30 verses. The other nine get six. You are not talking about the Daniel in the Hebrew bible.
Six verses, but most of them long, and with details.
It was probably going through revisions after it was "discovered".
You have a point here. Maybe the book was read by literate Jews who were in cahoots with the author. So they would accept revised "updated" manuscripts and trash the old ones.
Anyway, you accepted updates were made during a few years. So that issue is also yours.
How many centuries later? If you read the Seder Olam, its "historical" information for the period isn't much better.
Olam considerably shortened the year of Persian rule so the 490 years of Daniel point to around 135 CE.
But "Daniel" 2 would have to considerably increase the years of Persian rule to make the 490 years points to 167-164 BCE (by around 185 years). But wait: you said Daniel would know only about the existence of the first four Persian kings: 185 years for their combined years of reign is quite a lot!
So how could "Daniel" 2 increase the years of Persian rule so much if he thought it consisted of only four consecutive kings?
The process appears to go thus:
The 1290 days start by "from the time of the turning aside of the perpetual sacrifice" and ends by "to the giving out of the desolating abomination". It does not finish with the reconsecration of the temple. That throws your theory out of the window. Check the Hebrew, the YLT translation looks correct:
"and from the time of the turning aside of the perpetual sacrifice, and to the giving out of the desolating abomination, are days a thousand, two hundred, and ninety.". (Daniel 12:11)
The text specifies the seventieth week in 9:27. After seven weeks, followed by sixty-two weeks, 9:27 gives the final one week.
Looking at Daniel 9:26, NRSV:
"After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed."
An anointed one to be cut off and then have nothing can only refer to one who is rejected; but not killed, because "have nothing" would not make sense. For you, that anointed one is high priest Onias III, removed from office in 175 BCE. But the half of the week (which you think means 3.5 years) would bring you to 172-171 BCE at the latest, when Antiochus IV considerably damaged city & temple.
But wait, that happens in 168-167 BCE. So your week of years is wrong, as also Onias III as the anointed one in Dan 9:26.
And this time, Daniel & his contemporaries would have experienced these years and not rely on ancient writings for the time intervals.
That's just plain wrong, given the vowel pointings. The vowels make seven and seventy quite different sounding words, roughly "shebba" and "shibbim". Your aim though is to cover up the differences and try to get sevens and seventies as close as possible to prop up the dead theory.
Does not matter as it sounds, but as it is written.
I agree that most of Daniel part 2 was written before the death of Antiochus and the restart of Jewish sacrifices (It was written after the massacres of Jews in caves by fire, and before the resistance got somewhat successful). But when that happened the author made insertions and additions at the end.
OK.
(my bolding)
On what other grounds than pointing success do you think the writers might make specific prophecies?
That's the point. The main part of Daniel part 2 was written when things were desperate for Jews then. That was written for the Jews to keep faith because allegedly Michael would make things right again (and save the Jews dead or alive, but nor the ex-Jews!). The successful uprising under the Maccabees was not anticipated yet, nor the reconsecration of the temple.
After the massacres, the author said he was not expecting a successful resistance (Dan 11:32-35) "until the time of the end" (Antiochus' death & Michael's intervention).
Risk? It is my understanding that the writers were communicating to the people doing the fighting, following the victories. Stuff written after the resumption of the Tamid and the removal of the abomination would be irrelevant to the text. We are in a period before those events had taken place. Afterwards, the villain was dead. The temple cleansed. It was a new context. There were new players and new circumstances.
That's true, if we include the "updates". But still the initial Daniel part 2 was written before these victories.
As a general rule, these prophetic writings were written when things were going bad for the Jews, to entice them to keep their faith. That's why we get so many prophetic writings during the exile up to some time before the temple was rebuilt (as for 'Zechariah'). When things were going OK, there was no need for them. Daniel part 2 is no exception, except that the author made updates up to the time of the news that Antiochus died (and Michael did not show his stuff then!). Why? because during these times, it would be unthinkable that "Daniel" would not be informed about what will happen in the temple in these 3.5 years period, between the massacres and Antiochus' death!
Dan 7:26 marks the end of the first vision with the end of the dominion of Antiochus. Dan 8:14 was about the restoration of the sanctuary and, 8:25, the destruction of Antiochus. 9:27 is until the desolator Antiochus gets it heralding the end of the abomination and the stoppage. 11:36ff goes into la-la-land and no-one would want that seen again. You might play with Dan 12:7 "the shattering of the people comes to an end". Neither 12:11 or 12:12 clarify what the end is, so more wiggle room, but those are t he last five verses of the book. The rest is out of date.
Of course, these visions hoped for the end of Antiochus.
8:13-14 (1150 days) is an update after the temple was reconsecrated.
12:11 has 1290 days ending to another desecration.
12:12 has the 1335 days ending at when the Jews took control of the temple again.
All these three time intervals are "updates" and start when the temple is first desecrated by Antiochus IV.
You go off and try to compare "half" with "night", which makes no sense at all. (Comparing "week" with "night", "day" or "hour" would be fair.)

It's not only "half" but "half of the week", a unit of time which is compared with night (another unit of time).
(Comparing "week" with "night", "day" or "hour" would be fair.)
Well, "half of the week" can be substituted to "week".
when חצי is translated as midst (halfway) it is determined by a preposition. You cannot find contrary examples, so you branch out in a stream of consciousness manner and say nothing useful.
Prepositions can be existing in the Hebrew, or they are assumed, as you do for your"for" and I do for my "at" or "in". So we are equal on this.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by spin »

Bernard Muller wrote:to spin,
Of course you are dead wrong about Jeshua being the anointed prince/ruler in Dan 9:25, for many reasons I already explained.
Let's list those many reasons:

1.
2.
3.
...
Bernard Muller wrote:
b) Branch, according to Jeremiah (23:5 & 33:15), refers to a descendant of David (which fits Zerubbabel), but not Jeshua, a high priest.
This is not Jeremiah, but Zechariah. You cannot impute things from another text when the passage we are looking at does not provide you with the materials to do so
So what? "Daniel' knew about 'Jeremiah' for sure (Dan 9:2). So why would Zechariah not get his Branch from 'Jeremiah'?
I'll let you continue to speculate.
Bernard Muller wrote:And coming from you: you said that "Daniel" was inspired for his week(s) of years from a verse of Leviticus. So why not Zachariah did the same from verses of 'Jeremiah'.
Misrepresentation. I said that Hebrew literature was aware of the notion of weeks of years.
Bernard Muller wrote:
"Several"?
What is your problem with "several"?
It's not in the text.
Bernard Muller wrote:
I found: Dan 9:1, 9:2, 9:5, 9:7, 9:8, 9:9, 9:16, 9:18, 9:19 all with no waw starting a clause.
Perhaps if you have read what I said, you wouldn't have wasted your time again. You didn't note that "within a verse". I even underlined it to grab your attention. Going off half-cocked means that you are likely to blunder. If you think you understand the issue now, please find me an example WITHIN A VERSE that features a clause
I looked also inside the verses. So what did I miss?
Where within the verses 9:1, 9:2, 9:5, 9:7, 9:8, 9:9, 9:16, 9:18, 9:19 not at the beginning is there a clause not marked by a waw or similar??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Bernard Muller wrote:
Of course Zechariah should have read Daniel, to be ultra-accurate!!
'Daniel' came later than 'Zechariah'. "Daniel" 2 probably knew about 'Zechariah'. But where would he have seen Jeshua as a prince, and also 49 years after the decree: nowhere.
You are still assuming your blunder regarding Zech 6 is somehow functional. The text clearly has Yeshua crowned, God saying "behold the branch..." and the only person who could be referred to in Zech 6 is Yeshua, only he could be acclaimed as ruler in the passage. You, Bernard, refuse to read the text and look elsewhere to try to negate the obvious significance of Zech 6.
Bernard Muller wrote:
The only one crowned to be referred to by God as ruler.
Sweet dream! The one called the Branch is to get royal honor if he rebuilds the temple"
"... Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; ..."
(Zec 6:12b-13a)
That name, obviously Zerubbabel (according to Zech 4:9 "The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; ..."
And in Zec 3:8, the servant named Branch is not Joshua: "Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH."
This just undelines your refusal to read Zech 6.
Bernard Muller wrote:
The verb שוב means many things which center around returning to a previous state or location, which include "restore", "repair", "put back", etc, beside "return".
It does not look that "restore" or "repair" would be a normal translation for שוב.
I took "return" straight from here: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/dan9.pdf
Yup. I know. Does it imagine Jerusalem returning? It's just an oversimplified literal rendering of the verb.
Bernard Muller wrote:The verb is Qual, imperfect (an action, process or condition which is incomplete).
You are correct. It is the first instance of the verb in the verse that is hiphil.
Bernard Muller wrote:This statement (as you interprete it in Dan 9:25b) also implies that in the first 49 years after the decree of Cyrus, nothing was done pertaining to the ruined city. Once again, "Daniel" was totally ignorant of the situation during Cyrus' reign! And "Daniel" did not read Isaiah 44:28:
"who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfil all my purpose'; saying of Jerusalem, 'She shall be built,' and of the temple, 'Your foundation shall be laid.'"
(written after the facts, of course: the author knew that only the foundation of the temple will be laid during Cyrus' reign!)
Beside noting the undercurrent of ultra-accuracy when it is not to be expected, I don't see much that requires response here.
Bernard Muller wrote:
This part of the text was written in Hebrew for a particular situation in Judea where literacy was exceptionally low, so you are going off in a tangent. Daniel lost its currency soon after the historical moment it was dealing with passed. Antiochus who filled much of that part was dead, so the text was no longer relevant
Prophetic texts were meant to be relevant right after they were written. These texts were meant to be read (by a few) and listened by many.
So you agree that Daniel was dead once its villain was killed off IRL.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Actually, the writers describe very little to do with Alexander, but know a lot about Antiochus III & IV. Two kings get 30 verses. The other nine get six. You are not talking about the Daniel in the Hebrew bible.
Six verses, but most of them long, and with details.
And I'm sure you can see such detail as to describe events in the reigns of Seleucus I, Antiochus I, Antiochus II, Seleucus II and Seleucus III in those six verses, comparable to the ten verses for Antiochus III and 14 verses for Antiochus IV. The rest of the world cannot. What they see is the fact that Daniel shows very little knowledge of anyone before Antiochus III. This is only to be expected when one cannot count on knowledge of much before their grandparents time.
Bernard Muller wrote:
It was probably going through revisions after it was "discovered".
You have a point here. Maybe the book was read by literate Jews who were in cahoots with the author. So they would accept revised "updated" manuscripts and trash the old ones.
Anyway, you accepted updates were made during a few years. So that issue is also yours.
I think that the text was consulted after events necessitated work on the text. "I've just noticed this important passage that only makes sense now...".
Bernard Muller wrote:
How many centuries later? If you read the Seder Olam, its "historical" information for the period isn't much better.
Olam considerably shortened the year of Persian rule so the 490 years of Daniel point to around 135 CE.
Yet strangely enough seems quite in tune with Daniel's four king Persian dynasty.
Bernard Muller wrote:But "Daniel" 2 would have to considerably increase the years of Persian rule to make the 490 years points to 167-164 BCE (by around 185 years). But wait: you said Daniel would know only about the existence of the first four Persian kings: 185 years for their combined years of reign is quite a lot!
So how could "Daniel" 2 increase the years of Persian rule so much if he thought it consisted of only four consecutive kings?
It doesn't. The Persians are the third, bronze, kingdom and Daniel quickly passes over it to deal with the Greek kingdom, the two legs, Seleucid and Ptolemy.
Bernard Muller wrote:
The process appears to go thus:
The 1290 days start by "from the time of the turning aside of the perpetual sacrifice" and ends by "to the giving out of the desolating abomination". It does not finish with the reconsecration of the temple. That throws your theory out of the window. Check the Hebrew, the YLT translation looks correct:
"and from the time of the turning aside of the perpetual sacrifice, and to the giving out of the desolating abomination, are days a thousand, two hundred, and ninety.". (Daniel 12:11)
I don't see where you get that reading from. It says from the time of the putting aside of the Tamif and the setting up of the abomination..., ie they both mark the start.
Bernard Muller wrote:
The text specifies the seventieth week in 9:27. After seven weeks, followed by sixty-two weeks, 9:27 gives the final one week.
Looking at Daniel 9:26, NRSV:
"After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed."
An anointed one to be cut off and then have nothing can only refer to one who is rejected; but not killed, because "have nothing" would not make sense. For you, that anointed one is high priest Onias III, removed from office in 175 BCE. But the half of the week (which you think means 3.5 years) would bring you to 172-171 BCE at the latest, when Antiochus IV considerably damaged city & temple.
But wait, that happens in 168-167 BCE. So your week of years is wrong, as also Onias III as the anointed one in Dan 9:26.
And this time, Daniel & his contemporaries would have experienced these years and not rely on ancient writings for the time intervals.
You're not dealing with the time markers in the text, the seven, the sixty-two and the one, with unhappily for you mark the full seventy. You have to avoid doing this because you are clinging to a falsified theory.
Bernard Muller wrote:
That's just plain wrong, given the vowel pointings. The vowels make seven and seventy quite different sounding words, roughly "shebba" and "shibbim". Your aim though is to cover up the differences and try to get sevens and seventies as close as possible to prop up the dead theory.
Does not matter as it sounds, but as it is written.
You really keep moving the goalposts. The numeral theory failed, so you went to letters, which was outlandish in practise, so you talk about annotations in sand, and now you ignore the fact that the words seven and seventy sound quite different and go back to letters. It keeps failing no matter how you repackage it.
Bernard Muller wrote:
On what other grounds than pointing success do you think the writers might make specific prophecies?
That's the point. The main part of Daniel part 2 was written when things were desperate for Jews then. That was written for the Jews to keep faith because allegedly Michael would make things right again (and save the Jews dead or alive, but nor the ex-Jews!). The successful uprising under the Maccabees was not anticipated yet, nor the reconsecration of the temple.
After the massacres, the author said he was not expecting a successful resistance (Dan 11:32-35) "until the time of the end" (Antiochus' death & Michael's intervention).
I think 11:21-35 is all vaticinium ex eventu. They had happened and do not reflect the updating seen in the changing durations. If 12:7 is part of the same writing event as chapter 11, then it is another 3.5 year based part of the text. The only thing that seems before it is the vision in Dan 8 with its 1150 days. Dan 7 is a problem with its 3.5 years, as one would think it was before the rest, but if so the duration is hard to deal with.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Risk? It is my understanding that the writers were communicating to the people doing the fighting, following the victories. Stuff written after the resumption of the Tamid and the removal of the abomination would be irrelevant to the text. We are in a period before those events had taken place. Afterwards, the villain was dead. The temple cleansed. It was a new context. There were new players and new circumstances.
That's true, if we include the "updates". But still the initial Daniel part 2 was written before these victories.
As a general rule, these prophetic writings were written when things were going bad for the Jews, to entice them to keep their faith. That's why we get so many prophetic writings during the exile up to some time before the temple was rebuilt (as for 'Zechariah'). When things were going OK, there was no need for them. Daniel part 2 is no exception, except that the author made updates up to the time of the news that Antiochus died (and Michael did not show his stuff then!). Why? because during these times, it would be unthinkable that "Daniel" would not be informed about what will happen in the temple in these 3.5 years period, between the massacres and Antiochus' death!
Bernard Muller wrote:
Dan 7:26 marks the end of the first vision with the end of the dominion of Antiochus. Dan 8:14 was about the restoration of the sanctuary and, 8:25, the destruction of Antiochus. 9:27 is until the desolator Antiochus gets it heralding the end of the abomination and the stoppage. 11:36ff goes into la-la-land and no-one would want that seen again. You might play with Dan 12:7 "the shattering of the people comes to an end". Neither 12:11 or 12:12 clarify what the end is, so more wiggle room, but those are the last five verses of the book. The rest is out of date.
Of course, these visions hoped for the end of Antiochus.
8:13-14 (1150 days) is an update after the temple was reconsecrated.
12:11 has 1290 days ending to another desecration.
12:12 has the 1335 days ending at when the Jews took control of the temple again.
All these three time intervals are "updates" and start when the temple is first desecrated by Antiochus IV.
When Dan 7:25 talks of changing the times and the law, it involves Antiochus IV's disruption of the temple cultus, an indication of the same set of events which included the stoppage of the Tamid and the setting up of the abomination. Antiochus becomes the bad guy with his physical intervention in the daily lives of people in Judea, ie the events which include the putting aside of the cultic calendar replaced by the Seleucid calendar when Antiochus tried to stiffle the cultus. Dan 7's 3.5 years is Dan 3.5 days is Dan 12:11's 3.5 years.
Bernard Muller wrote:
You go off and try to compare "half" with "night", which makes no sense at all. (Comparing "week" with "night", "day" or "hour" would be fair.)

It's not only "half" but "half of the week", a unit of time which is compared with night (another unit of time).
You want to change how "half" is used, not "week". You are trying to change the subject from what can be counted (weeks, nights, etc) to the way the counting is applied (duration or point).
Bernard Muller wrote:
(Comparing "week" with "night", "day" or "hour" would be fair.)
Well, "half of the week" can be substituted to "week".
The "half" is a count or measure, not a standard time unit, to which it is applied here. You are making false comparisons.
Bernard Muller wrote:
when חצי is translated as midst (halfway) it is determined by a preposition. You cannot find contrary examples, so you branch out in a stream of consciousness manner and say nothing useful.
Prepositions can be existing in the Hebrew, or they are assumed, as you do for your"for" and I do for my "at" or "in". So we are equal on this.
Rubbish, Bernard. Hebrew works differently from English, a fact you have yet to fathom. Durations don't get prepositions. We have to put them in in English because they are required. Turning a measure (of time) into a point (in time) is reflected by a preposition, as is the case with every single time חצי with a standard time unit is transformed into a point in time (from "half" to "halfway"). You have no parallels to negate this fact. All you have done is to change topic.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to spin,
Let's list those many reasons:
I did it already. Here again, by memory:
1. Nowhere it is said that Jeshua became a prince & ruler or even acted like one.
2. Receiving several crowns on his head, with no ceremonial and important Jews present does not look like a coronation.
3. The crowns are taken away from Jeshua and become a memorial for the temple.
4. The one called the Branch is not Jeshua but a descendant of David (according to 'Jeremiah'), who is expected to rebuilt the temple and receive royal honor.
5. Zerubbabel is that man according to Zec 4. Of course, Zerubabbel is not Jeshua.
6. Your so-called crowning of Jeshua would come 49 years after Cyrus' first year, when Zechariah put it much earlier.
Misrepresentation. I said that Hebrew literature was aware of the notion of weeks of years.
So where else than Leviticus that Hebrew literature is aware of the notion of weeks of years?
I'll let you continue to speculate.
Zechariah was not living in a cave. Why would he be prevented to know about the main religious Hebrew literature of his days? More so when you claim that "Daniel" was aware of Hebrew literature mentioning weeks of years.
It's not in the text.
Shall I be restricted to use words which are in the text? You don't. Why should I? "several" stands, for more than one, and it is legitimate to use that word for "crowns" (plural).
Where within the verses 9:1, 9:2, 9:5, 9:7, 9:8, 9:9, 9:16, 9:18, 9:19 not at the beginning is there a clause not marked by a waw or similar??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
That's your job to prove me wrong for all mentioned verses. And why do you mention "not at the beginning"? If a clause starts at the beginning of a verse without a waw, that should count. After all versification came later and it is not from the original author.
You are still assuming your blunder regarding Zech 6 is somehow functional. The text clearly has Yeshua crowned, God saying "behold the branch..." and the only person who could be referred to in Zech 6 is Yeshua, only he could be acclaimed as ruler in the passage. You, Bernard, refuse to read the text and look elsewhere to try to negate the obvious significance of Zech 6.
You are the one reading a lot more in the text than what it says.
Yup. I know. Does it imagine Jerusalem returning? It's just an oversimplified literal rendering of the verb.
The important thing is that verb (Qal, imperfect) describe and action and is not about a duration. It does not fit: "and FOR 434 years, it shall return (or be put back, if you prefer) ..."
So you agree that Daniel was dead once its villain was killed off IRL.
What do you mean by that?
And I'm sure you can see such detail as to describe events in the reigns of Seleucus I, Antiochus I, Antiochus II, Seleucus II and Seleucus III in those six verses, comparable to the ten verses for Antiochus III and 14 verses for Antiochus IV. The rest of the world cannot. What they see is the fact that Daniel shows very little knowledge of anyone before Antiochus III. This is only to be expected when one cannot count on knowledge of much before their grandparents time.
And why would "Daniel" show more knowledge about who & what preceded Antiochus III & Antiochus IV? Of course these two kings would be of more interest for his audience because they were recent. And Antiochus IV was still alive & threatening at the time.
But before Antiochus III, "Daniel" gives details on these Hellenist kingdoms & kings which are accurate. I do not know why you expect more. 'Daniel' was not meant to be a narrated history, where the author would feel obligated to tell everything he knows.
Yet strangely enough seems quite in tune with Daniel's four king Persian dynasty.
Barely, the four Persian kings (from Cyrus the Great's rule over Babylon up to Darius I's death) count for 53 years. Olam had 34 years. "Daniel" would allocate 210 years for (according to you) these four kings (53 years). That makes for very long reign for each of those four!
It doesn't. The Persians are the third, bronze, kingdom and Daniel quickly passes over it to deal with the Greek kingdom, the two legs, Seleucid and Ptolemy.
Because "Daniel" does not say much about the Persian kings, that does not mean he thought their era was short.
... "and from the time of the turning aside of the perpetual sacrifice, and to the giving out of the desolating abomination, are days a thousand, two hundred, and ninety.". (Daniel 12:11)
I don't see where you get that reading from. It says from the time of the putting aside of the Tamif and the setting up of the abomination..., ie they both mark the start.
There is a "to" in the Hebrew text (which I bolded in the YLT translation). And why would the author only mark the start of these 1290 days and give no indication where that will end? That does not make sense.
You're not dealing with the time markers in the text, the seven, the sixty-two and the one, with unhappily for you mark the full seventy. You have to avoid doing this because you are clinging to a falsified theory.
What marks the seventieth week/seven is not "the seven, the sixty-two and the one" but AFTER the 69 weeks/sevens.
You never answered me about what comes AFTER the sixty-nine weeks/sevens. The 70th week/seven is accounted right here and is not missing. You are entertaining that within this 70th week/seven, there is another week of year. Unfortunately that week of years (or rather its half) does not bring you to the desecration of the temple but 3 to 4 years before. That's your problem.
When Dan 7:25 talks of changing the times and the law, it involves Antiochus IV's disruption of the temple cultus, an indication of the same set of events which included the stoppage of the Tamid and the setting up of the abomination. Antiochus becomes the bad guy with his physical intervention in the daily lives of people in Judea, ie the events which include the putting aside of the cultic calendar replaced by the Seleucid calendar when Antiochus tried to stiffle the cultus.
Daniel 7 was written between the first and the second foray of Antiochus IV into Jerusalem.
7:25 RSV "He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time."
Notice "think" (only), not "change the times and the law". No desecration mentioned.
That desecration will be alluded to in the next vision, starting at 8:1 (8:11)
Dan 7's 3.5 years is Dan 3.5 days is Dan 12:11's 3.5 years.
What do you mean by that? and "a time, times, and half a time" (7:25 & 12:7) is an indefinite time, not necessarily amounting 3.5 years, and time does not have to mean year.
In Dan 12:7, what is translated "time" is really, according to the Hebrew, "appointed time" and certainly not "year".
I think that "appointed time", with hindsight, was understood as "time", then as "year".
I could not find the translation from Aramaic from "time" in Dan 7:25.
(Comparing "week" with "night", "day" or "hour" would be fair.)
OK, a week is 7 days. "half of the week" is 3-4 days. If comparing "week" with "night" is fair, I do not see why comparing "half a week" with "night" is unfair.
Rubbish, Bernard. Hebrew works differently from English, a fact you have yet to fathom. Durations don't get prepositions. We have to put them in in English because they are required.
And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator." (Dan 9:27 RSV)
"cause ... to cease" is Hiphil imperfect. The imperfect expresses an action, process or condition which is incomplete.
If it is so, the action is the beginning of the cessation and therefore not the whole duration of the cessation (as understood by Theodotion which Geek is translated "by half of the week"). So the so-called implied "for" would be incorrect.
Furthermore, for example according to Genesis 31:39: "That which was torn by wild beasts I did not bring to you; I bore the loss of it myself; of my hand you required it, whether stolen by day or stolen by night." the two "by" are implied only: גנבתי יום וגנבתי לילה׃ . So I do not see why "half of the week" cannot be preceded by "by" rather than "for", such as "by half of the week".

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by spin »

Bernard Muller wrote:to spin,
Let's list those many reasons:
I did it already. Here again, by memory:
1. Nowhere it is said that Jeshua became a prince & ruler or even acted like one.
The very passage we are looking at in Zech 6 says that he was ruler. You refuse to accept that, not because of what the passage says but because you have to eliminate Yeshua from contention in Dan 9:25 due to your falsified theory.
Bernard Muller wrote:2. Receiving several crowns on his head, with no ceremonial and important Jews present does not look like a coronation.
You persist in this "several" nonsense. Ridiculous.

You are assuming that this crowning was done somehow as a private ceremony, while coronations are never so. The only important figure present is mentioned, Yeshua, but there is a whole host implied to make it happen and be significant.
Bernard Muller wrote:3. The crowns are taken away from Jeshua and become a memorial for the temple.
Like most other crowns in world history, the crown is removed after ceremony to safe keeping.
Bernard Muller wrote:4. The one called the Branch is not Jeshua but a descendant of David (according to 'Jeremiah'), who is expected to rebuilt the temple and receive royal honor.
When God says "behold the branch" the only person to be referred to in the passage is Yeshua, but your commitments don't allow you to read the passage for what it says.
Bernard Muller wrote:5. Zerubbabel is that man according to Zec 4. Of course, Zerubabbel is not Jeshua.
Obviously things happened between the time of Zech 4 and what is now presented in Zech 6, a situation you are used to in Daniel: circumstances change. Here we are shown Yeshua in Zech 6 being crowned alone.
Bernard Muller wrote:6. Your so-called crowning of Jeshua would come 49 years after Cyrus' first year, when Zechariah put it much earlier.
It's not my so-called crowning of Yeshua. It's the text's so-called crowning. But let's not let the text get in the way of your desired outcome. And who on earth you are still trying to be ultra-accurate—when you know such ultra-accuracy is baloney in a less than literate culture—makes no sense... except to prop up your other commitments based on a falsified theory.

In sum, you've presented nothing... but a tasteless stew that has no meat in it.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Misrepresentation. I said that Hebrew literature was aware of the notion of weeks of years.
So where else than Leviticus that Hebrew literature is aware of the notion of weeks of years?
Do you need anywhere else to show that a "week of years" is part of the culture?
Bernard Muller wrote:
I'll let you continue to speculate.
Zechariah was not living in a cave. Why would he be prevented to know about the main religious Hebrew literature of his days? More so when you claim that "Daniel" was aware of Hebrew literature mentioning weeks of years.
This seems to be very hard for you that people in the Hebrew culture would know something about weeks of years without having read the literature. Did the Hebrew culture not exist outside texts?
Bernard Muller wrote:
It's not in the text.
Shall I be restricted to use words which are in the text? You don't. Why should I? "several" stands, for more than one, and it is legitimate to use that word for "crowns" (plural).
"Plural" includes "two". "Several" does not.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Where within the verses 9:1, 9:2, 9:5, 9:7, 9:8, 9:9, 9:16, 9:18, 9:19 not at the beginning is there a clause not marked by a waw or similar??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
That's your job to prove me wrong for all mentioned verses. And why do you mention "not at the beginning"?
Because that is what "WITHIN" indicates, ie not at the beginning. You know, the location we are looking at in Dan 9:5 is a clause that is not at the beginning of the verse, but the second clause in the verse.
Bernard Muller wrote:If a clause starts at the beginning of a verse without a waw, that should count. After all versification came later and it is not from the original author.
The grammatical requirement is for a particle (such as waw) to start clauses within, ie after the beginning of, a clause group.
Bernard Muller wrote:
You are still assuming your blunder regarding Zech 6 is somehow functional. The text clearly has Yeshua crowned, God saying "behold the branch..." and the only person who could be referred to in Zech 6 is Yeshua, only he could be acclaimed as ruler in the passage. You, Bernard, refuse to read the text and look elsewhere to try to negate the obvious significance of Zech 6.
You are the one reading a lot more in the text than what it says.
Rubbish, texts work on coherence. You are being incoherent by not reading what the text says, ignoring semantic links (crown -> ruler) and insinuating significant people who are presented nowhere in the passage.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Yup. I know. Does it imagine Jerusalem returning? It's just an oversimplified literal rendering of the verb.
The important thing is that verb (Qal, imperfect) describe and action and is not about a duration. It does not fit: "and FOR 434 years, it shall return (or be put back, if you prefer) ..."
You need a Qal perfect. And you try very hard with this ultra-accuracy! Yet, you cannot talk of 434 years. You have no way to do so with your sevens/seventies. You are perversely pushing ultra-accuracy when I have never claimed such accuracy. In fact I have negated it because there is no scope for the ultra-accuracy you keep crapping on about. Seder Olam shows you it's a dumb approach: had the Jewish writers been attuned to ultra-accuracy the text couldn't have been produced. Your ultra-accuracy is mere sophistry, because of your falsified theory.
Bernard Muller wrote:
So you agree that Daniel was dead once its villain was killed off IRL [in real life].
What do you mean by that?
You seem to want the text of Daniel to be updated after the death of Antiochus IV, when his death is a sign of the terminus of the tribulation.
Bernard Muller wrote:
And I'm sure you can see such detail as to describe events in the reigns of Seleucus I, Antiochus I, Antiochus II, Seleucus II and Seleucus III in those six verses, comparable to the ten verses for Antiochus III and 14 verses for Antiochus IV. The rest of the world cannot. What they see is the fact that Daniel shows very little knowledge of anyone before Antiochus III. This is only to be expected when one cannot count on knowledge of much before their grandparents time.
And why would "Daniel" show more knowledge about who & what preceded Antiochus III & Antiochus IV? Of course these two kings would be of more interest for his audience because they were recent. And Antiochus IV was still alive & threatening at the time.
But before Antiochus III, "Daniel" gives details on these Hellenist kingdoms & kings which are accurate.
Most of the content (6-8) deals with the story surrounding Berenike Syra and says little about other things. The rest is more than vague.
Bernard Muller wrote:I do not know why you expect more. 'Daniel' was not meant to be a narrated history, where the author would feel obligated to tell everything he knows.
You were the one banging on about ultra-accuracy. Glad to see a change of heart.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Yet strangely enough seems quite in tune with Daniel's four king Persian dynasty.
Barely, the four Persian kings (from Cyrus the Great's rule over Babylon up to Darius I's death) count for 53 years. Olam had 34 years. "Daniel" would allocate 210 years for (according to you) these four kings (53 years). That makes for very long reign for each of those four!
This is a mixture of fantasy and modern retrojection.
Bernard Muller wrote:
It doesn't. The Persians are the third, bronze, kingdom and Daniel quickly passes over it to deal with the Greek kingdom, the two legs, Seleucid and Ptolemy.
Because "Daniel" does not say much about the Persian kings, that does not mean he thought their era was short.
Just that there were only four kings.
Bernard Muller wrote:
... "and from the time of the turning aside of the perpetual sacrifice, and to the giving out of the desolating abomination, are days a thousand, two hundred, and ninety.". (Daniel 12:11)
I don't see where you get that reading from. It says from the time of the putting aside of the Tamid and the setting up of the abomination..., ie they both mark the start.
There is a "to" in the Hebrew text (which I bolded in the YLT translation). And why would the author only mark the start of these 1290 days and give no indication where that will end? That does not make sense.
Not exactly, the Hebrew has an infinitive לתת.
Bernard Muller wrote:
You're not dealing with the time markers in the text, the seven, the sixty-two and the one, with unhappily for you mark the full seventy. You have to avoid doing this because you are clinging to a falsified theory.
What marks the seventieth week/seven is not "the seven, the sixty-two and the one" but AFTER the 69 weeks/sevens.
You're going to dance around this into the foreseeable future, forgetting that there is a lasting debate about "after three days" and "on the third day". The clarity given by the "one week" after the previous 69 should convince you, but you are stuck trying to breathe life into the silly sevens-&-seventies thingy. You cannot accept that שבעים is just a normal "defective" spelling of "weeks", when 9:27 makes that abundantly clear: 69 שבעים followed by one שבוע—which can also be spelt defectively (see Gen 29:27).
Bernard Muller wrote:You never answered me about what comes AFTER the sixty-nine weeks/sevens. The 70th week/seven is accounted right here and is not missing. You are entertaining that within this 70th week/seven, there is another week of year. Unfortunately that week of years (or rather its half) does not bring you to the desecration of the temple but 3 to 4 years before. That's your problem.
The significance of the plural form אחרי translated as "after" just means "hinder part" according to BDB. You are leaning to hard on the English without understanding the underlying word.
Bernard Muller wrote:
When Dan 7:25 talks of changing the times and the law, it involves Antiochus IV's disruption of the temple cultus, an indication of the same set of events which included the stoppage of the Tamid and the setting up of the abomination. Antiochus becomes the bad guy with his physical intervention in the daily lives of people in Judea, ie the events which include the putting aside of the cultic calendar replaced by the Seleucid calendar when Antiochus tried to stiffle the cultus.
Daniel 7 was written between the first and the second foray of Antiochus IV into Jerusalem.
7:25 RSV "He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time."
Notice "think" (only), not "change the times and the law". No desecration mentioned.
That desecration will be alluded to in the next vision, starting at 8:1 (8:11)
Dan 2:21 makes clear that changing the times is the prerogative of God. It doesn't matter what Antiochus IV does, hence "think", despite his actions to change the times.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Dan 7's 3.5 years is Dan 3.5 days is Dan 12:11's 3.5 years.
What do you mean by that? and "a time, times, and half a time" (7:25 & 12:7) is an indefinite time, not necessarily amounting 3.5 years, and time does not have to mean year.
In Dan 12:7, what is translated "time" is really, according to the Hebrew, "appointed time" and certainly not "year".
I think that "appointed time", with hindsight, was understood as "time", then as "year".
I could not find the translation from Aramaic from "time" in Dan 7:25.
I've already pointed out that "time" in 12:7 is not the usually word for time, but the word for the appointed time of the yearly festivals. (see Eze 45:17, new moons, sabbaths and moedim.)
Bernard Muller wrote:
(Comparing "week" with "night", "day" or "hour" would be fair.)
OK, a week is 7 days. "half of the week" is 3-4 days. If comparing "week" with "night" is fair, I do not see why comparing "half a week" with "night" is unfair.
Subterfuge. You are not talking about seven days, but "week", the notion. Measure it and it gains a context, two weeks, half a week. In the case of the word "night" there is nothing measured. It is the state of being night. That is not comparable in any sense to your insinuated preposition before "half" in Dan 9:27. It is not there and there is no reason to put one there. And your attempted comparison is false, ignoring the fact that a measure is being made and that measure is used to supply a point in time through the use of a preposition. "Night" is not a point in time. "Half a week" plus a preposition gives a point. Your analogy is simply wrong.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Rubbish, Bernard. Hebrew works differently from English, a fact you have yet to fathom. Durations don't get prepositions. We have to put them in in English because they are required.
And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator." (Dan 9:27 RSV)
"cause ... to cease" is Hiphil imperfect. The imperfect expresses an action, process or condition which is incomplete.
If it is so, the action is the beginning of the cessation and therefore not the whole duration of the cessation (as understood by Theodotion which Geek is translated "by half of the week"). So the so-called implied "for" would be incorrect.
Not correct: the hiphil "cause to cease" should need to be perfect to reflect the finish implied by a point in time. (Theodotion just says: εν τω ημισει της εβδομαδος, "in the half of the week".)
Bernard Muller wrote:Furthermore, for example according to Genesis 31:39: "That which was torn by wild beasts I did not bring to you; I bore the loss of it myself; of my hand you required it, whether stolen by day or stolen by night." the two "by" are implied only: גנבתי יום וגנבתי לילה׃ . So I do not see why "half of the week" cannot be preceded by "by" rather than "for", such as "by half of the week".
Hilarious. The word "by" is used in various ways in English. Here you are trying to conflate two of them. Fail. I really am jack of your blunders, Bernard. You cannot English your way through this stuff.

Neither night nor day (nor week nor month nor year) is a point in time. Halfway through the night, week, month or year is a point. To get halfway from "half" in Hebrew you need a preposition, as in every case you have looked at. That allows you to transform the measurement of time units which normally forms a duration into a point. You have failed to find a relevant comparison. There is no indication that allows you to consider anything but a duration in 9:27 for "half the week".
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to spin,
The very passage we are looking at in Zech 6 says that he was ruler. You refuse to accept that, not because of what the passage says but because you have to eliminate Yeshua from contention in Dan 9:25 due to your falsified theory.
The one destined to be a ruler is called the Branch, but that will happen only if & when he rebuilds the temple.
You are assuming that this crowning was done somehow as a private ceremony, while coronations are never so. The only important figure present is mentioned, Yeshua, but there is a whole host implied to make it happen and be significant.
God asks Zechariah to put crowns on the head of Jeshua. No mention of ceremony with Jewish VIPs which would make that alleged coronation official.
Like most other crowns in world history, the crown is removed after ceremony to safe keeping
You are talking about only one crown now. I agree, only one crown makes more sense for any coronation but we have more than one. BTW, no ceremony is mentioned in Zec 6. And the crowns are not for a symbol of Jeshua's princeship, but "as a memorial in the temple of the Lord".
When God says "behold the branch" the only person to be referred to in the passage is Yeshua, but your commitments don't allow you to read the passage for what it says.

I would say it is your commitment which attaches the Branch to Jeshua. In Zec 3:8, the servant Branch is mentioned but Jeshua is not the only one present then.
Obviously things happened between the time of Zech 4 and what is now presented in Zech 6, a situation you are used to in Daniel: circumstances change. Here we are shown Yeshua in Zech 6 being crowned alone.
From Zec 1:7 to 6:15, all the alleged visions happened on "the four and twentieth day of the eleventh month, which is the month Sebat, in the second year of Darius"
So there was no time for a circumstances change between 3:8, 4:9 & 6:12.
It's not my so-called crowning of Yeshua. It's the text's so-called crowning. But let's not let the text get in the way of your desired outcome. And who on earth you are still trying to be ultra-accurate—when you know such ultra-accuracy is baloney in a less than literate culture—makes no sense... except to prop up your other commitments based on a falsified theory.
We are not talking about ultra accuracy here but, for you, an error of 34 years on 15 years, that is 226 %.
In sum, you've presented nothing... but a tasteless stew that has no meat in it
I would say the same about your objections.
Do you need anywhere else to show that a "week of years" is part of the culture
So only one verse from Leviticus, with "Sabbath of years" (with "of years" specified) and that became part of the culture!
This seems to be very hard for you that people in the Hebrew culture would know something about weeks of years without having read the literature. Did the Hebrew culture not exist outside texts?
No, they would not know because nowhere else "week(s)" obviously means "week(s) of years".
What was then specifically oral Hebrew Jewish culture is unevidenced speculation. You are appealing to invisible evidence.
Plural" includes "two". "Several" does not.
True in American English. But the fact these crowns will be taken care by four different persons suggests a greater number.
Because that is what "WITHIN" indicates, ie not at the beginning. You know, the location we are looking at in Dan 9:5 is a clause that is not at the beginning of the verse, but the second clause in the verse.
So are you acknowledging that at the beginning of verse 9:5, that first clause starts with no waw?
So is 8:4.
That would be similar to Dan 9:25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed one, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’
It will be rebuilt with a plaza and a trench, but in times of trouble."
Versification is arbitrary and not assigned by the original author. "It will be ..." could have been the start of another verse.
The grammatical requirement is for a particle (such as waw) to start clauses within, ie after the beginning of, a clause group.
Clauses with no waw tends to be put at the beginning of verses, and that would explain why few clauses without a waw are inside verses.
You need a Qal perfect. And you try very hard with this ultra-accuracy! Yet, you cannot talk of 434 years. You have no way to do so with your sevens/seventies. You are perversely pushing ultra-accuracy when I have never claimed such accuracy. In fact I have negated it because there is no scope for the ultra-accuracy you keep crapping on about. Seder Olam shows you it's a dumb approach: had the Jewish writers been attuned to ultra-accuracy the text couldn't have been produced. Your ultra-accuracy is mere sophistry, because of your falsified theory.
Qual imperfect is used "to express the "future", referring not only to an action which is about to be accomplished but one which has not yet begun:" https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/dan ... onc_859025
One example is featured: ""We will burn" thy house" (simplified from Jdg 14:15). That would be ridiculous if in front "For fifty years" is put such as "For fifty years, we will burn thy house".
In Dan 9:25 "For hundred of years, it will return/come back" (and not "be returned" or "be back') is also ridiculous. Sounds like the action of returning will happen many times during these centuries. However, in addition, the imperfect might denote the city or temple, after its return, is still standing.

Olam was determined to have his 490 years pointing to 135 CE. You cannot say "Daniel" was determined to have his alleged 490 years pointing to 167 BCE. Actually they would be pointing to around 55 BCE, which is of no interest.
To have the 490 years pointing to 167 BCE, Daniel would have to greatly extend the Persian era over Olam, up to the 1st year of Cyrus at about 650 BCE (instead of factual 539 BCE). But you said "Daniel" knew only of the four first Persian kings. Go figure ...
You seem to want the text of Daniel to be updated after the death of Antiochus IV, when his death is a sign of the terminus of the tribulation.
Absolutely NOT. That's not what I have been saying all along. At least, try to understand my views about these 1150, 1290 & 1335 days.
There is a "to" in the Hebrew text (which I bolded in the YLT translation). And why would the author only mark the start of these 1290 days and give no indication where that will end? That does not make sense.
Not exactly, the Hebrew has an infinitive לתת
I do not see what difference that would make: NRSV "From the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that desolates is set up, ...". With the corrections ("to" and infinitive):
"From the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and TO the abomination that desolates SETTING up, ..."
The significance of the plural form אחרי translated as "after" just means "hinder part" according to BDB. You are leaning to hard on the English without understanding the underlying word.
אחרי meaning "after" as "afterwards" is widely used in the bible, including 'Jeremiah'.
And "hinder part' instead of "after" in Dan 9:26 does not make any sense.
Dan 2:21 makes clear that changing the times is the prerogative of God. It doesn't matter what Antiochus IV does, hence "think", despite his actions to change the times.
Dan 2:21 NRSV "He changes times and seasons, deposes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding."
I do not see any connection. In 2:21, God affirmatively changes the times but in 7:25 it is Antiochus IV who thinks of changing the times.
Subterfuge. You are not talking about seven days, but "week", the notion. Measure it and it gains a context, two weeks, half a week. In the case of the word "night" there is nothing measured. It is the state of being night. That is not comparable in any sense to your insinuated preposition before "half" in Dan 9:27. It is not there and there is no reason to put one there. And your attempted comparison is false, ignoring the fact that a measure is being made and that measure is used to supply a point in time through the use of a preposition. "Night" is not a point in time. "Half a week" plus a preposition gives a point. Your analogy is simply wrong.
"week, the notion": your notion is "week" = 7 years. But for me, here, "week" is just that: "week". No subterfuge here.
Half is not a period of time like night or day, but "half of the day" is. So what's OK for "night" or "day" (like an implied "by" in front of them) is also OK for "half of the day". State of being night? why not state of being half of the week? There is nothing wrong about "by the half of the week".
"It is not there and there is no reason to put one there.": As also your implied "for".
Not correct: the hiphil "cause to cease" should need to be perfect to reflect the finish implied by a point in time. (Theodotion just says: εν τω ημισει της εβδομαδος, "in the half of the week".)
εν can also be translated as "at".
As I mentioned before on this post: the imperfect is used to express the "future", referring not only to an action which is about to be accomplished but one which has not yet begun.
And the example: "We will burn" thy house. There is no reference here on how long is the burning or the duration of the house in the state of being burnt.
You can replace ""We will burn" thy house" by the hiphil form "we will cause thy house to burn". That will not change anything.
If we look at the beginning of Dan 9:27 "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week ..." "shall confirm" is hiphil, perfect. Normally, that should be translated as "he shall cause to confirm/strengthen the convenant". But because of the perfect, it is an action completed, not going on for seven years, but terminated when that part of Daniel was written, only months after Antiochus IV's 2nd foray in Jerusalem.
And your (embedded in the seventieth week) half of the week, it would be ending also a few months after Antiochus left Jerusalem for the last time, at the latest, because that's when your last week (the 70th) ends.

But you insist Dan 9 was written soon before the 1150 days were over with still no reconsecration of the temple. Then you have to accept that, at this time, Antiochus confirming the covenant had ended before (because of the perfect) and therefore the 70th week and its embedded 2nd half were completed.
It would be OK, except Dan 9:27 did not predict the reconsecration (or any reconsecration) before Antiochus' death. So it's rather hard to imagine "Daniel" was predicting, when Dan 9 was written, with the 1150 days, when the temple will be reconsecrated.

But your major problem is that your last week would start before your Onias III was removed from office (that is in 175 BCE) and by 168-167 BCE, at the latest, would end. But wait: Dan 9:27 says the half of the week starts then (in 168-167 BCE).
You have a problem here. Your half of the week cannot be 3.5 years in duration, but a lot less.

So why the imperfect for "he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease".
I think that the action referred here was to stop the sacrifices which would take little time, but that cessation was not over and still going on when that part of 'Daniel' was written.
The word "by" is used in various ways in English. Here you are trying to conflate two of them. Fail. I really am jack of your blunders, Bernard. You cannot English your way through this stuff.
But in my example from Gen 31:39, where the two implied "by" has been put in the translation: "stolen by day or stolen by night", the "by" can be replaced as such: "stolen at day(time) or stolen at night".
It just depends what is more elegant in English: "at" or "by" for the textual context.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The temple saying & traditions before Mark.

Post by spin »

Bernard Muller wrote:to spin,
The very passage we are looking at in Zech 6 says that he was ruler. You refuse to accept that, not because of what the passage says but because you have to eliminate Yeshua from contention in Dan 9:25 due to your falsified theory.
The one destined to be a ruler is called the Branch, but that will happen only if & when he rebuilds the temple.
You are assuming that this crowning was done somehow as a private ceremony, while coronations are never so. The only important figure present is mentioned, Yeshua, but there is a whole host implied to make it happen and be significant.
God asks Zechariah to put crowns on the head of Jeshua. No mention of ceremony with Jewish VIPs which would make that alleged coronation official.
Like most other crowns in world history, the crown is removed after ceremony to safe keeping
You are talking about only one crown now. I agree, only one crown makes more sense for any coronation but we have more than one. BTW, no ceremony is mentioned in Zec 6. And the crowns are not for a symbol of Jeshua's princeship, but "as a memorial in the temple of the Lord".
When God says "behold the branch" the only person to be referred to in the passage is Yeshua, but your commitments don't allow you to read the passage for what it says.

I would say it is your commitment which attaches the Branch to Jeshua. In Zec 3:8, the servant Branch is mentioned but Jeshua is not the only one present then.
Obviously things happened between the time of Zech 4 and what is now presented in Zech 6, a situation you are used to in Daniel: circumstances change. Here we are shown Yeshua in Zech 6 being crowned alone.
From Zec 1:7 to 6:15, all the alleged visions happened on "the four and twentieth day of the eleventh month, which is the month Sebat, in the second year of Darius"
So there was no time for a circumstances change between 3:8, 4:9 & 6:12.
As you really don't know the scholarship on the subject and you are continuing to show no interest in finding out, I really don't think you can make any reasonable comments on Yeshua and Zerubbabel in Zechariah. All you are doing is negating what the text says and then doing eisegesis. An internet search for "what happened to Zerubbabel" might point you in the right direction. (You might also think about when the high priest as political head of the Jewish people began during Persian rule.)
Bernard Muller wrote:
It's not my so-called crowning of Yeshua. It's the text's so-called crowning. But let's not let the text get in the way of your desired outcome. And who on earth you are still trying to be ultra-accurate—when you know such ultra-accuracy is baloney in a less than literate culture—makes no sense... except to prop up your other commitments based on a falsified theory.
We are not talking about ultra accuracy here but, for you, an error of 34 years on 15 years, that is 226 %.
When you try to make claims regarding durations, dates and percentage errors I'd say your still peddling ultra-accuracy.
Bernard Muller wrote:
In sum, you've presented nothing... but a tasteless stew that has no meat in it
I would say the same about your objections.
To get this straight, you are the one objecting to a reading of a text based on the cohesion of ideas and trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat to produce a counter-intuitive reading. This is pure textbook fundamentalist argumentation.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Do you need anywhere else to show that a "week of years" is part of the culture
So only one verse from Leviticus, with "Sabbath of years" (with "of years" specified) and that became part of the culture!
So you don't think a central text like Leviticus is a reflection of the cultic mores of the society? Really, do you? Do you need it repeated a number of times to be sure?
Bernard Muller wrote:
This seems to be very hard for you that people in the Hebrew culture would know something about weeks of years without having read the literature. Did the Hebrew culture not exist outside texts?
No, they would not know because nowhere else "week(s)" obviously means "week(s) of years".
What was then specifically oral Hebrew Jewish culture is unevidenced speculation. You are appealing to invisible evidence.
You did not answer the question.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Plural" includes "two". "Several" does not.
True in American English.
True in any recognizable English.
Bernard Muller wrote:But the fact these crowns will be taken care by four different persons suggests a greater number.
Englishizing rubbish. First there is sufficient scholarly doubt on whether עטרת is a plural at all and not a defective feminine form. That in itself should make you think twice about pursuing the nonsense about the four guys each receiving a crown. You ignored the fact that prepositions are used differently in Hebrew, so that you cannot use them to assert separate receipt of crowns.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Because that is what "WITHIN" indicates, ie not at the beginning. You know, the location we are looking at in Dan 9:5 is a clause that is not at the beginning of the verse, but the second clause in the verse.
So are you acknowledging that at the beginning of verse 9:5, that first clause starts with no waw?
So is 8:4.
That would be similar to Dan 9:25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed one, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’
It will be rebuilt with a plaza and a trench, but in times of trouble."
Versification is arbitrary and not assigned by the original author. "It will be ..." could have been the start of another verse.
Ya know, Bernard, how many thousand verses have you got to look into to find an example or two of clauses within them not starting with a particle like waw? There are so many, can't you confirm just one complete clause within a verse?
Bernard Muller wrote:
The grammatical requirement is for a particle (such as waw) to start clauses within, ie after the beginning of, a clause group.
Clauses with no waw tends to be put at the beginning of verses, and that would explain why few clauses without a waw are inside verses.
Got proof of any?
Bernard Muller wrote:
You need a Qal perfect. And you try very hard with this ultra-accuracy! Yet, you cannot talk of 434 years. You have no way to do so with your sevens/seventies. You are perversely pushing ultra-accuracy when I have never claimed such accuracy. In fact I have negated it because there is no scope for the ultra-accuracy you keep crapping on about. Seder Olam shows you it's a dumb approach: had the Jewish writers been attuned to ultra-accuracy the text couldn't have been produced. Your ultra-accuracy is mere sophistry, because of your falsified theory.
Qual imperfect is used "to express the "future", referring not only to an action which is about to be accomplished but one which has not yet begun:" https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/dan ... onc_859025
One example is featured: ""We will burn" thy house" (simplified from Jdg 14:15). That would be ridiculous if in front "For fifty years" is put such as "For fifty years, we will burn thy house".
In Dan 9:25 "For hundred of years, it will return/come back" (and not "be returned" or "be back') is also ridiculous. Sounds like the action of returning will happen many times during these centuries. However, in addition, the imperfect might denote the city or temple, after its return, is still standing.

Olam was determined to have his 490 years pointing to 135 CE. You cannot say "Daniel" was determined to have his alleged 490 years pointing to 167 BCE. Actually they would be pointing to around 55 BCE, which is of no interest.
To have the 490 years pointing to 167 BCE, Daniel would have to greatly extend the Persian era over Olam, up to the 1st year of Cyrus at about 650 BCE (instead of factual 539 BCE). But you said "Daniel" knew only of the four first Persian kings. Go figure ...
So Seder Olam gets it wrong but your sevens and seventies interpretation of Dan 9 must be ultra-accurate. You keep coming back to the same single argument. "It's gotta be accurate so I'll try to use accuracy against you." Your 21st century musing about what people might have thought 22 centuries ago is not relevant. There is no reason for you to assert ultra-accuracy. Seder Olam is not accurate and, despite you trying to explain it away, it points to the fact that accuracy was not essential. It's just you and the fundamentalists who think it is here.
Bernard Muller wrote:
You seem to want the text of Daniel to be updated after the death of Antiochus IV, when his death is a sign of the terminus of the tribulation.
Absolutely NOT. That's not what I have been saying all along. At least, try to understand my views about these 1150, 1290 & 1335 days.
OK, you have not been clear up to now. Please use the dates in regard to the goalposts: 1) stoppage of the Tamid, 2) the installation of the abomination, 3) the death of Antiochus IV and 4) the rededication of the temple. I hope you can make it clear.
Bernard Muller wrote:
There is a "to" in the Hebrew text (which I bolded in the YLT translation). And why would the author only mark the start of these 1290 days and give no indication where that will end? That does not make sense.
Bernard Muller wrote:Not exactly, the Hebrew has an infinitive לתת
I do not see what difference that would make: NRSV "From the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that desolates is set up, ...". With the corrections ("to" and infinitive):
"From the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and TO the abomination that desolates SETTING up, ..."
Again Englishizing causes blundering. (This blunder, showing you difficulty with understanding English language theory, is a good reason for you to stop.) To be literal regarding the infinitive, it must read:

"From the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and to set up the abomination that desolates, ..."

See what happens? You lose your end point, the one that was never there and that no translator ever translated.
Bernard Muller wrote:
The significance of the plural form אחרי translated as "after" just means "hinder part" according to BDB. You are leaning to hard on the English without understanding the underlying word.
אחרי meaning "after" as "afterwards" is widely used in the bible, including 'Jeremiah'.
And "hinder part' instead of "after" in Dan 9:26 does not make any sense.
"After" is a derived meaning from "hinder part" and you have no real way to assert that it indicates "following the end of" rather than "at the end of". You are trying to force the events at the end of the 69th week into the seventieth week, despite the text specifically telling you not to by saying when the one week was. If you remember that אחרי literally indicates the rear, then you have no problem reading it as "at the end of the 62 weeks". You keep pushing for the English meanings of terms that don't quite fit the Hebrew.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Dan 2:21 makes clear that changing the times is the prerogative of God. It doesn't matter what Antiochus IV does, hence "think", despite his actions to change the times.
Dan 2:21 NRSV "He changes times and seasons, deposes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding."
I do not see any connection. In 2:21, God affirmatively changes the times but in 7:25 it is Antiochus IV who thinks of changing the times.
I was explaining the language to you concerning the use of "think". There is no suggestion that Antiochus did not change the times. If you need to see it, 2 Macc 6:7 shows Antiochus imposing the Greek calendar on the Jews. Not only did Antiochus think it, he acted on it.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Bernard Muller wrote:If comparing "week" with "night" is fair, I do not see why comparing "half a week" with "(no measure) night" is unfair.
Subterfuge. You are not talking about seven days, but "week", the notion. Measure it and it gains a context, two weeks, half a week. In the case of the word "night" there is nothing measured. It is the state of being night. That is not comparable in any sense to your insinuated preposition before "half" in Dan 9:27. It is not there and there is no reason to put one there. And your attempted comparison is false, ignoring the fact that a measure is being made and that measure is used to supply a point in time through the use of a preposition. "Night" is not a point in time. "Half a week" plus a preposition gives a point. Your analogy is simply wrong.
"week, the notion": your notion is "week" = 7 years.
We need to deal substantiating or negating "week" not this deliberate tangent here. Concentrate on the specific problem.
Bernard Muller wrote:But for me, here, "week" is just that: "week". No subterfuge here.
The weeks in 9:25 and the week in 9:27 are dealing with the same time unit, plural and singular.

Still the same subterfuge. you can compare ones with halve or sevens or whatever measures you like:
Bernard Muller wrote:Half is not a period of time like night or day, but "half of the day" is.
This is basically correct, while missing the real issue:
Bernard Muller wrote:So what's OK for "night" or "day" (like an implied "by" in front of them) is also OK for "half of the day".
Wrong. "One day", yes. "day", certainly not. You are trying to compare things that are incomparable. This is why your attempted analogy fails. Talking about "by day" or "by night" measures nothing, so has nothing to do with the measure of time "half a week".

You have blundered so often in this thread and required steps backwards almost to absurdity to try to justify the fact that you are absolutely ignorant of the language issues you must know to make the pronouncements that you do. This utterly stupid notion of seventy sevens is based on ignorance. Your defense of it is pure ignorance. You don't even know when the words you depend on in your English cogitations have the same meanings or not. The word "by" in "by 5pm" does not me an the same thing as "(they stole) by night". You have simply ignored your blunder and proceed. I don't think I can expect you to do anything else but continue to make unperceived mistake after mistake.
Bernard Muller wrote:State of being night? why not state of being half of the week? There is nothing wrong about "by the half of the week".
"It is not there and there is no reason to put one there.": As also your implied "for".
This is more failed English straightjacketing Hebrew. I think you have done enough to show how outlandish you are prepared to get to cling to your foolish sevesn and seventies kludge. Sixty-nine whatevers is not seventy. A miss is as good as a mile.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Not correct: the hiphil "cause to cease" should need to be perfect to reflect the finish implied by a point in time. (Theodotion just says: εν τω ημισει της εβδομαδος, "in the half of the week".)
εν can also be translated as "at".
How do you know when εν does not indicate the usual "in"?
Bernard Muller wrote:As I mentioned before on this post: the imperfect is used to express the "future", referring not only to an action which is about to be accomplished but one which has not yet begun.
This quote from Genesius might help with the imperfect:

The Hebrew (Semitic) Perf. denotes in general that which is concluded, completed, and past, that which has happened and has come into effect; but at the same time, also that which is represented as accomplished, even though it be continued into present time or even be actually still future. The Imperf. denotes, on the other hand, the beginning, the unfinished, and the continuing, that which is just happening, which is conceived as in process of coming to pass, and hence, also, that which is yet future; likewise also that which occurs repeatedly or in a continuous sequence in the past (Latin Imperf.). It follows from the above that the once common designation of the Imperf. as a Future emphasizes only one side of its meaning.

Now I can see you've done some reading here:
Bernard Muller wrote:And the example: "We will burn" thy house. There is no reference here on how long is the burning or the duration of the house in the state of being burnt.
You can replace ""We will burn" thy house" by the hiphil form "we will cause thy house to burn". That will not change anything.
If we look at the beginning of Dan 9:27 "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week ..." "shall confirm" is hiphil, perfect. Normally, that should be translated as "he shall cause to confirm/strengthen the convenant". But because of the perfect, it is an action completed, not going on for seven years, but terminated when that part of Daniel was written, only months after Antiochus IV's 2nd foray in Jerusalem.
So what do you have to say about the perfect in Gen 33:13, "if you overdrive them for one day, the all flocks will die" or 31:41 in which Jacob served Laban for fourteen years or 1 Kgs 16:23 in which Omri reigned six years in Tirzah? All perfects.
Bernard Muller wrote:And your (embedded in the seventieth week) half of the week, it would be ending also a few months after Antiochus left Jerusalem for the last time, at the latest, because that's when your last week (the 70th) ends.
This is not clear to me. Is the seventieth week that you talk of here, the one in 9:27? If so, the half week which measures the cessation of the Tamid was 168/7 to 164, as I, like most other readers of the passage, see the use of "weeks" to be implying "weeks of years", as you know. That period marks the beginning of the pollution to the rededication.
Bernard Muller wrote:But you insist Dan 9 was written soon before the 1150 days were over with still no reconsecration of the temple.
As a rule of thumb, shorter means earlier. 1150 days is earlier than 1260 (ie 3.5 years).
Bernard Muller wrote:Then you have to accept that, at this time, Antiochus confirming the covenant had ended before (because of the perfect) and therefore the 70th week and its embedded 2nd half were completed.
I don't agree with your attempt at grammar here. The verb means "prevail or be strong", so we should have "cause to prevail for one week". (This is not a punctiliar action at all.)
Bernard Muller wrote:It would be OK, except Dan 9:27 did not predict the reconsecration (or any reconsecration) before Antiochus' death. So it's rather hard to imagine "Daniel" was predicting, when Dan 9 was written, with the 1150 days, when the temple will be reconsecrated.

But your major problem is that your last week would start before your Onias III was removed from office (that is in 175 BCE) and by 168-167 BCE, at the latest, would end. But wait: Dan 9:27 says the half of the week starts then (in 168-167 BCE).
You have a problem here. Your half of the week cannot be 3.5 years in duration, but a lot less.
You have not been concentrating. I have told you already that the last week started well after Onias was removed from office in 175. It started ~171 when Menelaus outbid Jason for the high priesthood.
Bernard Muller wrote:So why the imperfect for "he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease".
For the writer it was not finished. That is one of the major implications of the imperfect.
Bernard Muller wrote:I think that the action referred here was to stop the sacrifices which would take little time, but that cessation was not over and still going on when that part of 'Daniel' was written.
The word "by" is used in various ways in English. Here you are trying to conflate two of them. Fail. I really am jack of your blunders, Bernard. You cannot English your way through this stuff.
But in my example from Gen 31:39, where the two implied "by" has been put in the translation: "stolen by day or stolen by night", the "by" can be replaced as such: "stolen at day(time) or stolen at night".
It just depends what is more elegant in English: "at" or "by" for the textual context.
You still cannot see the blunder! There is no analogy between Gen 31:39 and Dan 9:27. The English word "by" that you want to insinuate into 9:27 means something different from the "by" conjured up for "by day and by night" in 31:39. Hebrew uses prepositions differently from English. You need to understand how, not continue with things that show you don't even understand the problem.

That you cannot get past the fact that Dan 9:25-27 clearly spells out seventy weeks as 7 + 62 + 1, I really don't know how I can help you. If I don't find a way, you will keep trotting out this crock of nonsense about 69 sevens (36) & seventies (33), a last unstated seven/seventy and one week.

The sevens argument is based on a misunderstanding of Hebrew orthography: there is no tangible reason for you to think that the writers did not mean "weeks" in its defective form. Your seventy sevens is based on the fact you didn't know Hebrew had no digits, so they couldn't count sevens, which is the whole basis of your table. Writing all the words out would not help and there is no thought involved in annotations-in-sand conjecture. This is just a series of goalpost moves. The notion that you put forward with your table would not have made any sense to people listening to the text being read. Your seventy sevens does not work. Yet you persist.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Post Reply