|
|
Post by kjs on May 13, 2019 10:55:31 GMT -6
I find this very interesting... I was asked to review verse 27 -- specifically about the "type" of covenant...
Traditionally, this has always been about "MAKING" "or "CONFIRMING" -- but when you look at the verb used -- one can obtain a different view ... so check it...
The word I am seeing is wə·hiḡ·bîr
with two translation saying it means "will make" and one translation saying "shall confirm"
with the primary meaning being "gabar: to be strong, mighty"
Interesting check out some of the sub-meanings - become (1), conducts himself arrogantly (1), exert (1), great (2), magnified (1), make a firm (1), prevail (5), prevailed (9), strengthen (2), stronger (1), surpassed (1).
(conjugation I. dialect; usually in derived conjugation) compel, force; overbearing behaviour,
A primitive root; to be strong; by implication, to prevail, act insolently -- exceed, confirm, be great, be mighty, prevail, put to more (strength), strengthen, be stronger, be valiant.
BASED on some of these sub-meanings - it is possible that that the verb describes the "HE" and this person is conducting himself arrogantly or acting insolently
Taking that approach then the "covenant" is not being modified (as being strengthen or confirmed) but rather the "HE" is compelling the acceptance of the covenant forcefully!
Granted these are secondary meanings of the word in use... but do you see that the way the verb is used -- could apply to the one making the covenant and imply how he establishes it... with FORCE?
|
|
|
|
Post by venge on May 13, 2019 14:07:14 GMT -6
That is an interesting thought. If accurate, am I understanding you when it would read as a man forcefully or arrogantly pushing a Covenant with many?
|
|
|
|
Post by kjs on May 13, 2019 14:31:15 GMT -6
That is an interesting thought. If accurate, am I understanding you when it would read as a man forcefully or arrogantly pushing a Covenant with many? Again, it is just a thought that came to me while reading some of the "sub-meanings"
Could (Would) it be possible for someone (Person X) could have Israel (and others) -- over a barrel so to speak -- and demand that they accept this Seven Year agreement -- OR ELSE....
(the or else of course would be whatever was being used to force the agreement)
Again -- just a thought -- no actual proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on May 13, 2019 15:31:26 GMT -6
That is an interesting thought. If accurate, am I understanding you when it would read as a man forcefully or arrogantly pushing a Covenant with many? Again, it is just a thought that came to me while reading some of the "sub-meanings"
Could (Would) it be possible for someone (Person X) could have Israel (and others) -- over a barrel so to speak -- and demand that they accept this Seven Year agreement -- OR ELSE....
(the or else of course would be whatever was being used to force the agreement)
Again -- just a thought -- no actual proof.
I am not saying the leaked Trump deal of the century is anything but look at the last point or two. There is language in this alleged document forcing both sides to accept or else. I could certainly imagine similar language if or when a covenant with death is proposed |
|
|
|
Post by williaml on May 14, 2019 13:23:10 GMT -6
William, please do not assume that the members of this board are unfamiliar with preterist or historicist viewpoints, even as the historian that you are. It is best to debate your viewpoint not from a presumed position of authority as a historian. We are familiar with your viewpoints, and are not convinced. Michael Vlach, Nelson Walters, Joel Richardson are but a few of other intellectuals as yourself who hold to different views from an intellectual standpoint, so to insult other believers by claiming they dont know Biblical Hebrew like you do is not edifying or productive. williaml Avatar May 8, 2019 11:00:04 GMT -6 williaml said: kjs Avatar May 8, 2019 10:33:31 GMT -6 kjs said: Argue the case with scripture .... not made up grammar rules that you insist you are the only one that knows......... Anyone who knows biblical Hebrew knows these rules. Clearly you do not know biblical Hebrew. Which makes it pointless to debate with you.
Why do the moderators ignore the obvious insult, "[you] made up grammar rules that you insist you are the only one that knows." This is false on two counts: I made them up, and no one else knows them.
Now, kjs is called a "moderator," but his tone has been anything but moderate. His tone and accusations are those of a partisan advocate of a position, with nothing moderate or moderating about them. But there has not been a peep about this by other moderators. This shows site bias, something I have run up against many times over the last 20 years of online forum discussions.
When there is an underlying but unstated site bias, there is no reason for me to attempt to debate issues, because the cards are already stacked against opposing views.
|
|
|
|
Post by williaml on May 14, 2019 14:00:31 GMT -6
Here is the relevant quote from Part 5 of my series on Daniel 9:24-27. Note the parts in boldface:
וְהִגְבִּי/And he shall cause to prevail/confirm; or, And he shall make strong [Hiphil Perfect 3ms with וְ/vav consecutive prefix] בְּרִית/a covenant לָרַבִּים/for the multitude שָׁבוּעַ/week אֶחָד/one…
“And he shall cause to prevail/confirm (or, shall make strong) a covenant for the multitude one week…”
Comment: A vav consecutive, also called a vav relative, is an unusual convention in Hebrew that changes a Perfect verb (completed action) into the effect of an Imperfect verb (incomplete action). They are commonly found, as here, at the beginning of a verse or phrase to continue a future tense sequence, the “consecutive,” the “relationship.” In this case, the narrative begins with the previous Hiphil Imperfect verb in verse 26, which is future tense: יַשְׁחִית/“he shall cause to destroy.” The narrative then continues in verse 27 with other future actions of the same “he.” The same man who is to cause the destruction of Jerusalem and Sanctuary also, as part of his actions, both causes [Hiphil] to confirm (or make) a covenant; and, as shown below, is the cause [Hiphil] of the cessation of blood sacrifices.// end of quote
To repeat, the Hebrew grammar shows that the same man that causes his people to destroy the city and the sanctuary also is the man that implements a covenant with the Jews in verse 27.
So all you claims of "proven false" are simply bogus. If can you find flaws in this analysis of the biblical Hebrew grammar, then show them. But I seriously doubt you have any proficiency in Hebrew at all.
Is there a distinguishing characteristic of hebrew that would indicate that one future tense must be connected to another future tense in word usage? Or is it possible that two different future tense words could be sequential but without a definitive, specified time period between them? Does the future tense grammar specify that two future events must occur in tandem? The Imperfect tense indicates that the action of the verb is still incomplete, and thus generally is used for the future: "He will come." The Perfect tense means that the action is complete, thus generally used for the past tense: "He came." Exceptions are future Perfect: "He will have come," but such exceptions are rare, and are determined by context.
A vav consectutive is an unusual convention that changes things around, wherein a future tense sequence uses a perfect verb in the middle of the sequence, as in the case of Daniel 9:26-27. The first verb in verse 27 is a Perfect verb, thus normally should be read "he caused to prevail/confirm a covenant..." But no Bible translation other than Young's Literal uses the past tense ["And he hath strengthened a covenant..." -- YLT], because the translators recognize that the Perfect tense here is prefixed by the vav consecutive, which changes the Perfect to the effect of an Imperfect/future tense: "And he shall cause..."
But the kicker is, which I pointed out, is that for the Perfect to be accounted as an Imperfect because of the vav consecutive, IT HAS TO BE IN A CONTINUOUS NARRATIVE SEQUENCE STARTED EARLIER; thus in this case, started in verse 26. But if the narrative sequence starts in verse 26 with the Imperfect verb "he shall cause to destroy," then the same man who causes to destroy also must be the one who is to cause to confirm a covenant. And that being the case, the events of that destruction must also include the events of verse 27: they are all part of an connected sequence of events initiated by the same man.
Can't make it any clearer than that.
Now, if you choose to reject the vav consecutive, then you are then stuck with the past tense for the beginning of verse 27: "He caused to confirm, (or, he will have caused to confirm)..." And so you are again caught with the same narrative problem: the SAME MAN who causes the destruction of the city and sanctuary is the one who causes to confirm the covenant. All in the 70th week. And that is the conclusion that kjs absolutely refuses to consider as a possibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by barbiosheepgirl on May 14, 2019 14:24:25 GMT -6
I don't agree with kjs ' opinion about the 70th week. He knows this, and I said a few things for my position and reasoning, but that I also was not going to be one to sway people to how I was seeing it. I just was stating that I do not agree with the "70th week unfulfilled-yet" notion. so, here I will say this for my stated postion: desolations are determined unto the end.
And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. this next part (the controversial part) 27“And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; to me this is a lower case pronoun because Christ came and was a 'little lower than the angels' while in the flesh: 9But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.(Hebrews)His death on the cross put an end for the need to do any more animal or grain offerings. then the verse continues: and on the wing of abominations [ will come one who makes desolate], even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." it reads to me this way: on the ends (or even the attempt of) abominations (animal/grain sacrifices/man's version of atonements), causing horror (because of the continued lack of accepting of Christ) even until complete destruction is the one (Christ, who will make desolate the one this whole 70th week thing is decreed to.) Translation again: The firm covenant is the everlasting covenant that Jesus would make upon his death, putting an end for the need of any other sacrifice. But, Daniel's people would continue to perform the physical sacrifices and grain offerings (which are now considered an abomination) and this (this defiance of the Lord) will continue to the end (of the Present Age) until complete destruction happens. (aka Wine Press Judgement). This is how I read Dan 9. Daniel was forseeing his people not accepting the new covenant, and from that time period forward after He was Cut OFF, there would and will be desolations continuing right up to the End. I believe this is why Daniel got so sick from his visions. He would see time and again that they would remain in not only physical bondage, dispersement etc, but spiritual bondage. I also believe that Jesus died in 33AD, not 32AD. We must consider the full moon phase and Passover, and I belive, but will have to confirm this, that Jesus could only have died in 33 AD or 30 AD because of where the full moon was falling in the era.. Why is this important? I will share what someone showed me that makes sense to me. I am not trying to sway anyone. Just where I am right now with how I am seeing things. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2019 17:34:58 GMT -6
Hi Barbie! Here is an excellent analysis by Gavin Finley, a very good friend of mine, who makes a strong case for 32 AD.....if you click on the link, check out #7 in the box on the right...NASA data and the 69 weeks timeline. It is a compelling powerpoint discussion....let me know what you think after you review it. It points to a 32 AD crucifixion using moon phase data from NASA. Gavin is a post-trib believer, wonderful man! I am not post-trib, but that doesn't impact on his analysis here endtimepilgrim.org/70wks1.htm |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2019 17:36:09 GMT -6
Hi william....I appreciate your viewpoint, I am only saying that the lack of grace in your comments is not helping your case....
William, it might be helpful to provide a reference for someone who is an expert in Biblical Hebrew that explains the verses in Daniel as you explain....I am not an expert, but I have other experts, Israeli Jews, messianic and non-messianic, that explain the verses as you describe differently....
For example, Emanuel Tov (non-messianic) is the preeminent world expert in the DSS, answered directly to an inquiry of mine, and explained the Hiphil perfect 3rd person of Daniel 9:27 to me as best translated "he will cause to strengthen covenant". He went on to explain that the "he" refers to the most recent reference, "the coming prince", not the Messiah as described prior.
He added that "am" did the destruction, not the "coming prince".
This makes an excellent case for the futurist viewpoint, which I confirmed with an Israeli believer whose ministry is to shed meaning on the Hebrew scriptures, Hannah Weiss, and from Robert Chisholm of Old Testament Studies at DTS.
This is not saying you are wrong......but it is saying there are eminent experts who do not read the verse the same way as you do, and therefore I would like to review your references as well!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2019 17:49:40 GMT -6
Barbie...I have done some research on ancient calendars and dating which I am happy to share and which points to 32 AD as well, but please review Gavin's material and we can pick it up after that!
|
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on May 15, 2019 1:14:32 GMT -6
Is there a distinguishing characteristic of hebrew that would indicate that one future tense must be connected to another future tense in word usage? Or is it possible that two different future tense words could be sequential but without a definitive, specified time period between them? Does the future tense grammar specify that two future events must occur in tandem? The Imperfect tense indicates that the action of the verb is still incomplete, and thus generally is used for the future: "He will come." The Perfect tense means that the action is complete, thus generally used for the past tense: "He came." Exceptions are future Perfect: "He will have come," but such exceptions are rare, and are determined by context.
A vav consectutive is an unusual convention that changes things around, wherein a future tense sequence uses a perfect verb in the middle of the sequence, as in the case of Daniel 9:26-27. The first verb in verse 27 is a Perfect verb, thus normally should be read "he caused to prevail/confirm a covenant..." But no Bible translation other than Young's Literal uses the past tense ["And he hath strengthened a covenant..." -- YLT], because the translators recognize that the Perfect tense here is prefixed by the vav consecutive, which changes the Perfect to the effect of an Imperfect/future tense: "And he shall cause..."
But the kicker is, which I pointed out, is that for the Perfect to be accounted as an Imperfect because of the vav consecutive, IT HAS TO BE IN A CONTINUOUS NARRATIVE SEQUENCE STARTED EARLIER; thus in this case, started in verse 26. But if the narrative sequence starts in verse 26 with the Imperfect verb "he shall cause to destroy," then the same man who causes to destroy also must be the one who is to cause to confirm a covenant. And that being the case, the events of that destruction must also include the events of verse 27: they are all part of an connected sequence of events initiated by the same man.
Can't make it any clearer than that.
Now, if you choose to reject the vav consecutive, then you are then stuck with the past tense for the beginning of verse 27: "He caused to confirm, (or, he will have caused to confirm)..." And so you are again caught with the same narrative problem: the SAME MAN who causes the destruction of the city and sanctuary is the one who causes to confirm the covenant. All in the 70th week. And that is the conclusion that kjs absolutely refuses to consider as a possibility.
I can agree that the incidents described in verses 26 and 27 will be caused by the same man. And that those incidents had not occurred at the time of the prophecy. As I understand it, the man in question is the same man of the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary. When were the city and the sanctuary destroyed? 70AD? A little digging on these 'people' found some interesting information. There were four legions that were most likely involved in Jerusalem in from 63AD to 70AD: Syrian legion XII Fulminata (symbol: a Thunderbolt) "...reinforced with units [read: Vexilla] of III Gallica (France!), IV Scythica (Russia? - formed by Marc Antony and also called Legio IV Parthica! for its battles against the Scythians... In his youth, future emperor Vespasian served in this legion.), and VI Ferrata (France!)..."; per the quote from this article: from the same article:
Legio X Fretensis (symbol as described - "...X Fretensis symbols were the bull — the holy animal of the goddess Venus (mythical ancestor of the gens Julia) — a ship (probably a reference to the Battles of Naulochus and/or Actium), the god Neptune, and a boar. The symbol of Taurus may also mean that it was organized between 20 April and 20 May..." #/media/File:Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70_CE)-en.svg) Map of Jerusalem Siege (see article for quote below) If the map is accurate, and X Fretensis was on the east side of the city; one could speculate that it was not involved in investing the city. Legio V Macedonica (symbol: the eagle - "...V Macedonica, whose symbol, the eagle, is crowned of wrath by Victoria...") Legio XV Apollinaris (symbol - "...The emblem of this legion was probably a picture of Apollo, or of one of his holy animals..." - pythons, ravens, swans, wolves, dolphins, roe deer, cicadas, hawks, crows, mice and griffins) There is an interesting coincidence between all of these units: Armena Map- 150BC (Note where the Parthian empire is) Parthian Empire map
Parthia article These units could have picked up Parthian conscripts prior to being involved in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD... Also, Symbol of Legio IV Scythica - a capricorn (!) Symbol of Legio III Gallica - a bull Want to guess which modern nationality the Parthians belonged to? |
|
|
|
Post by mike on May 15, 2019 6:14:20 GMT -6
williaml said:
Why do the moderators ignore the obvious insult, "[you] made up grammar rules that you insist you are the only one that knows." This is false on two counts: I made them up, and no one else knows them.
Now, kjs is called a "moderator," but his tone has been anything but moderate. His tone and accusations are those of a partisan advocate of a position, with nothing moderate or moderating about them. But there has not been a peep about this by other moderators. This shows site bias, something I have run up against many times over the last 20 years of online forum discussions.
When there is an underlying but unstated site bias, there is no reason for me to attempt to debate issues, because the cards are already stacked against opposing views.
William - There were a few comments between both of you that can be considered insulting. At the time of my note here you have 20 posts to your credit, not 20 years. Please understand that part of the role of a moderator is to ensure that conversations can remain civil but also to help guide a conversation that may seem doctrinally incorrect or unclear. There have been many folks who have come into this forum with ill intent. (I am not accusing you of that.) KJS has earned the respect of many members, other moderators and the owner of the site. With that we trust that he is very capable of having productive conversations without anyone intervening as you suggest should have been done. When trying to make points there are occasions where dialogue can appear accusatory or inflammatory. You make the statement that there has not been a peep from other moderators, however you are mistaken and make incorrect assumptions. We moderators discuss things off-line in addition to content in threads. The result of our discussion off-thread was posted in an attempt to bring the thread back to topic. Instead you chose to attack all of the moderators and claim that the site is biased against opposing views. Your very short tenure here has skewed your vision on the matter. We have in fact operated quite opposite of this viewpoint. 1John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12 Not as Cain, [who] was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. 14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not [his] brother abideth in death. 15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. 16 Hereby perceive we the love [of God], because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren. I ask that you and KJS please put this behind you, love one another as brethren and continue in a dialogue that is edifying to one another and all those reading along. Please also forgive me and the other moderators if we have caused offense against you sir. |
|
|
|
Post by barbiosheepgirl on May 15, 2019 8:00:27 GMT -6
@sam , thanks I will check out that link you provided. I know that comments have been made about the city and sanctuary not being destroyed in the 70th week and there being a gap to that as well, if one is suggesting the 70th week is fulfilled, referencing the 2nd temple doom. I have my reasoning on that as well. It said messiah cut off in the middle of the week (of what I would consider is the middle of the 70th week, seeing that it says "after the 62" . The "gap" to the destruction of the 2nd temple is after a 40 year period which is a common pattern of God (for testing, trial, probation). kjs, I think you commented on this a few pages back, but I can't find it, nor do I remember what you said about this "after the 62" My apologies. I don't read Daniel as giving us anything about what happens that concludes the 70th week, just that in the midst of the 70th week the Messiah will be cut off. This being rather significant, there is no need for Gabriel to say what concludes the 70th week. and, if we are still looking for the 70th week, again, there is no stated end to it either, or is it assumed that the destruction of the city & sanctuary is the end point? So here is a question: And this applies to the 70th week still future theorists. IF the 70th week is to still happen, where do you put this verse: (YLT) 26And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, This could mean that Jesus appears in the middle of the 70th week then, and there is yet again a refusal of Him, adding to His justification for judgement. This would put His Second Coming in the middle of the 7 year Trib., no? Perhaps He comes at the same time there is this other god-claiming figure standing in the wing of the 3rd temple. And then we see the partial destruction of Jerusalem physically, no? Because of Revelation 11 and the earthquake that happens and a 10th of the city is destroyed (the city spiritually called Sodom and Egypt where they crucified the Lamb). Hmm,, where they 'cut off' the Lamb. maybe this all fits then. But it puts Jesus' 2nd Coming in the middle of the 7 years. |
|
|
|
Post by stormyknight on May 15, 2019 10:22:25 GMT -6
Question(s): Why is the seven weeks rarely talked about? What happened 49 years after the "decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" went out? Shouldn't there be some significance to this since it is stated first before the sixty and two weeks?
|
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on May 15, 2019 16:03:08 GMT -6
Question(s): Why is the seven weeks rarely talked about? What happened 49 years after the "decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" went out? Shouldn't there be some significance to this since it is stated first before the sixty and two weeks? They rebuilt the wall during those seven weeks of years during troublesome times. Since wall means doctrine then they rebuilt the doctrine during those seven weeks of years. We know the doctrine was rebuilt because they went overboard with all their laws. So I guess to us it would be that they will rebuild the doctrine correctly this time via Christ. So from 1948 to 1997 (+ 49 years), the Jews had to consider their friends the US as their protection. Similarly, Cyrus the Persian etc. must have protected them in the first seven weeks of years. Notice that Christianity is accepted in Israel today and that is much different than before when they were crazy over their laws. The 62 weeks might be representative of an era that they function under several governments like Persia, Greece, and Rome. So the importance of Persia that is the US is replaced by whomever Greece represents and then by whomever Rome represents and probably within a 3.5 year period of time. So the flow is perhaps 1948 to 2001 (911) as the seven weeks of years. Then some change takes place that places Israel under the era of whatever Greece represents. Then another change that places Israel under whatever Rome represents. |
|
