spin

Here is a rough literal translation of Dan 9:25

1. W:TD( W:T$KL
   And know and understand
2. MN-MC) DBR
   from going out of word
3. L:H$YB W:L:BNWT YRW$LM
   to restore and to build Jerusalem
4. (D-M$YX NGYD
   until a messiah, a prince,
5. $B(YM $B(H
   weeks seven
6. W:$B(YM $$YM W:$NYM T$WB
   and weeks sixty and two return
7. W:NBNTH RXWB W:XRWC
   and are built street and moat
8. W:B:CWQ H (TYM (Colon omitted between "H (" to avoid smilie!)
   and in distress the times

(The colon [:] is used by me to show separable prefixes, W-, L- and H-, making it easier to follow the Hebrew. The hyphen [-] is in the Hebrew text.)

Notes

1. The time involved in the MN- (D (from/until) structure is given here as seven weeks.
2. #4 above has no definite articles (no H at the beginning of the nouns), though "times" (TYM in #8 has a definite article, ie "the times" -- the 62 weeks.
3. The word translated as "and" (W) has two uses: not only is it a simple "and" (eg "know and understand"), but it is also a clause marker (eg "and know"). In #6 above we have the start of a separate clause.
4. The verb "return" in #6 is imperfect, which gives the idea of continuing, while the verb "are built" in #7 is perfect, giving the idea of complete, so that the building is already done during the 62 weeks.
5. #8 is a verbless clause and the translator usually has to add an "are" or a "will be".

Verse 26 starts:

W )XRY H:$B(YM $$YM W:$NYM (Colon omitted between "W (" to avoid smilie)
And after the weeks sixty and two

The nice definite article before "weeks" tells the reader that they already know which 62 weeks.

Please feel free to argue or ask for clarification.


spin

unknown4

Jim, I'm not saying it's not a "69 week prophecy". What I'm saying is that you haven't told me, if the KJV translation is correct, why it refers to "until the Messiah the Prince, there shall be 7 weeks and 62 weeks". Why, if all it really meant is "69 weeks" until the Messiah the Prince, didn't it simply say 69 weeks instead of "7 and 62"? And why does Daniel later on say "After the 62 weeks", instead of simply saying "after the 69 weeks"?

unknown4

I'm just trying to get Jim to tell me, IF the KJV translation is correct, why it says "7 and 62 weeks" until the Messiah the Prince, instead of just simply saying 69 weeks. If the KJV is correct, why would Daniel have ever said "7 and 62" instead of simply saying 69? Apparently there was a reason Daniel said "7 and 62", and said "after the 62 weeks", instead of simply saying "69" weeks until the Messiah the Prince, and then saying "after the 69 weeks".

Or am I just totally nuts here? Which I could be.

spin

Jim is just not reading the text. He already knows what it should say, so there's no point in checking it out.

I said in the post you are responding to, "Someone still hasn't read the passage for what it says", but I didn't say who.


spin

unknown4

Ah, I apologize then.

spin

There's no need. :thumbs:

unknown4

Besides the idea which I have read that Hebrew doesn't use its equivalent for the word "for" in reference to a duration of time, and ignoring the atnah in the Masoretic text in Daniel 9:25, this translation, if completely literal and accurate, seems like it could support a Christian view. Although I have read that the word equivalent to "and" in Hebrew can be translated as "then". You do mention that "and" can mean a "clause marker". The first "and" of Daniel 9:24 seems to be translated as "therefore" in the KJV. Anyway, but what do I know? heh

I guess what I'm wanting to know is, besides the identification of 7 weeks and 62 weeks as opposed to saying 60 and 9, if one were to take away the atnah in verse 25 of the Masoretic text, and the fact that Daniel doesn't say "after the 60 and 9 weeks" but rather "after the 60 and 2 weeks", is there any other argument based on the grammar of Daniel 9:24-27 itself which argues against seeing the "7 and 62 weeks" being a single time period?

Also, I seem to recall a Christian argument that Daniel 9:24-27 couldn't have been about Antiochus and his "people", since it says "destroy the city and the sanctuary". I've read the word for "destroy" doesn't necessarily mean totally destroy though, like possibly in Daniel 8:24 where it mentions, at least in one translation "destroy the holy people". Was there a difference between the "sanctuary" and the "Temple", or were they entirely the same thing? Literally, I guess it says "destroy the city and the holy".

Now, I can see why Jews and Christians would see "destroy the city and the sanctuary" as a reference to the events around 70CE, so I shouldn't be surprised that "destroy" is the normal translation. Is there a good linguistic reason to believe that "destroy" here could simply mean partial destruction, ruin or corruption? I've read that word for "destroy" is translated as ruin/corrupt or something like that in some other passages.

Also, earlier in this thread, I quoted a translation from an old Greek version of Daniel 9:25, which said "ruin" and not "destroy". Do we even have any definite Hebrew manuscript of Daniel 9:25 which can be dated before 70CE? I'm wondering if perhaps the original word here was something which could imply less damage than "destroy", and that was perhaps changed after the events around 70CE. Sure, just my paranoid speculation perhaps, but I'm curious, hehe.

Any info is appreciated. Thanks.

Jim Larmore

I've tried to answer you on this by explaning why it was written that way. There is no historical confirmation of a messiah comming in 7 weeks after the fall of 457 B.C. or any other of the starts you want to claim. So it has to be concluded it was a commulative narrative that adds up to 69 weeks. If there is a hidden meaning here that corresponds with historical accounts then let someone mention them here now. Otherwise this is pure speculation as to what it may mean.

Amaleq13

This is only true if one has decided beforehand that the "prophecy" must be correct.

Better check your skirt, amigo, your a priori is showing.

Jim Larmore

I don't hold to catholic translations of the Bible , they are for the most part perverted and lean towards the churches "traditional" workings. I try to stay with the accepted canon for the O.T. and the codex/textus receptus for the N.T.