spin

Only problem is that Demetrius Phalereus was by this stage out of favour, but a scholarly commentary on Aristeas would tell you that.

Get a scholarly commentary.

As you will not take the Dan 11 test, you are in no position to talk about naivety. You have come half-cocked in to the discussion after many posts. Get up with the discussion before making rude noises.


spin

aChristian

Because I have studied languages enough to see the flaw in the arguement. As I said, I haven't read the whole thread and I don't intend to. I have just seen these types of arguements from language before on this site and know how often they are abused. It is important to be exact as possible when translating and to look at all the details when deciding on a translation, but you can go too far and try to force one meaning onto a word when really it could have more than one meaning, even within the context of the passage.

aChristian

No answer for the fact that the translators chose receive? On a side note, on which continent is nowhere located?

makerowner

That's exactly what spin's arguing against. arnoldo's trying to argue that Dan. 5:31 means that someone gave Darius the kingdom, whereas spin's saying that that's too precise a meaning for "receive", and that the meaning of the word in context has more to do with taking possession.
The translators are rather split on this word, but in any case, arnoldo's reading too much into it:

KJV - Dan 5:31 - And Darius the Median took the kingdom, [being] about threescore and two years old.

NKJV - Dan 5:31 - And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.

NLT - Dan 5:31 - And Darius the Mede took over the kingdom at the age of sixty-two.

NIV - Dan 5:31 -

and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.

ESV - Dan 5:31 -

And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.

NASB - Dan 5:31 - So Darius the Mede received the kingdom at about the age of sixty-two.

RSV - Dan 5:31 - And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.

ASV - Dan 5:31 - And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

Young - Dan 5:31 - and Darius the Mede hath received the kingdom, when a son of sixty and two years.

Darby - Dan 5:31 - And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, [being] about sixty-two years old.

Webster - Dan 5:31 - And Darius the Median took the kingdom, [being] about sixty and two years old.

HNV - Dan 5:31 - Daryavesh the Madian received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.

spin

Actually, all you've done is shown that you have BDB.

You have been shown where the contention was and you haven't shown any understanding of the problem.

This is it. You still don't know what this part of the discussion is about and so you are wasting people's time. I am dealing with the semantic implications of the term QBL. I tried to explain the issue and you did not understand. What am I supposed to do for you? I have waited for a reasoned response from you on post #346 of this thread, but nothing has come.

You see what is in question is not really the translation but what the Hebrew term can imply. Someone is trying to eke out an inappropriate implication.

Actually, what is happening is an attempt to prevent forcing of a meaning.


spin

spin

The reason why you are still talking such rubbish is that you neither understand the context nor the issue being discussed. Over and out.

And it's nowhere on any continent.

arnoldo

Is your point of view that a part of the book of daniel (chapters 1-6) was written mid-fourth century BCE and the rest of the book of Daniel (7-12) was written after 164 BCE due to the so called " after the fact prophecies" of Antiochus Ephihanes?

aChristian

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understood the part of the discussion that I read, arnoldo was arguing that someone gave Darius the kingdom (he received it) and spin said the word can only mean 'took'. I pointed out, and you supported it with all the translations that you gave, that the word can indeed mean received and that arnoldo's interpretation is allowable. Spin is wrong when he says it has to mean took and cannot mean recieved.

spin

This request for clarification has nothing to do with what you are ostensibly responding to. To see my view on what you ask read this.

Do you accept that Belshazzar was never king? He was the regent for Nabonidus but never king, unable to perform kingly duties such as at the new year festivals.

Do you accept that Nabonidus was in Babylonia at the time of its fall as indicated in the Chronicle of Nabonidus?

Do you accept that king "Darius the Mede" is not a historical figure?

Do you accept that Belshazzar is not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, being the son of Nabonidus, a commoner (and that any attempt to invent a mother who was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar would be futile, as lineage is through the male line)?

Do you accept that it's time you finished the analysis of Dan 11?


spin

spin

Let me correct you. Firstly, here's what I actually said:

The word for "receive", QBL, actually means "take" (see Ezra 8:30), so you cannot hide behind the hope that a king gave "Darius the Mede" his kingship: he took it.

You can hopefully see that the issue is not on the obtainer's side of the issue, but on but on a hypothetical giver's side. Now you can quibble with the meaning of "take" as much as you like, but the problem being looked at is whether someone gave "Darius the Mede" the kingdom. The problem with "receive" is that in English it implies someone giving, an implication not in the Hebrew and Aramaic.

The fact that the verse has been translated with either "received" or "took" indicates that there is no consideration of "giving".

Is the issue clearer? Besides that, you can translate QBL with any neutral form of "obtain" you like.


spin