Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 02-02-2008, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

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 are wrong. According to Brown, Driver, and Briggs page 1110 the word means receive(Aramaic). It it also translated as received(Hebrew) in Ezra.

Sadly, you'll see that BDB provides Ezra as an example of when QBL is "take", though you must look at the Hebrew entry (p.867), giving the Hebrew as a late Aramaic loan word. The Aramaic entry you refer to is simply incomplete (just look at the number of examples) and must be read with the Hebrew entry. The verb is not interested in the act of being given which is arnoldo's fudge, but being there (in front of it) to possess. See Dan 7:18 where QBL is paralleled with XSN, "to possess". So, no. Try again.

spin

spin · 02-02-2008, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

By the way, I haven't read through this whole post, but if you are trying to late date Daniel, you have to explain how it was translated as part of the Septuagint in 250 BC, long before 167 bc, if it didn't exist. You also have to deny Josephus' account about how the Jewish high priest Jaddua met Alexander the Great and showed him the prophecy about himself from the book of Daniel. As far as the historical questions, they have been answered already by conservative scholars. There are still questions we are learning more on, but the hard historical evidence supports the book of Daniel as a 6th century bc book by the traditional author.

You want to show that Daniel was translated into Greek in 250 BCE? Based on Pseudo-Aristeas perchance? Aristeas deals with the Torah and itself was written late.

You want to argue the fact that the Alexander story in Josephus is not spurious?

You too can take the Dan 11 test mentioned in this thread. If you can find a better historical context please do so, otherwise we have to date all the visions as having a terminus in 165 BCE.

spin

spin · 02-02-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Obvious error. You are simply inventing yet again. The text is talking of two consecutive reigns, Darius then Cyrus. The word for reign, MLKWT is the same in each case and indicates "kingdom, kingship, reign". One is not subordinate to the other. They are simply consecutive. Would you be so foolhardy to say if I talked about the reign of Claudius and the reign of Nero that they reigned together? Hopefully not. It would be the same error as you commit with the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus as stated in Dan 6:28.

It's time that you admitted you've made a blunder.

On the contrary, your postition is that Belshazzar never existed and yet historical records indicate he did.

You only make things worse for yourself. You are rubbing the egg all over your face, when I'm on record as knowing about Belshazzar (here), (here), (here), (here), and numerous other threads. Stop talking rubbish. If you don't understand what I say, ask for clarification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

In reference to Daniel 6:28 which states that "Daniel propsered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian." who do you think Cyrus the Persian is?

According to the text, the king after Darius the Mede.

spin

Sheshonq · 02-02-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

On the contrary, your postition is that Belshazzar never existed

No. That is not his position.

See what kind of embarrassment that your basic failure to read causes?

aChristian · 02-02-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

You are wrong. According to Brown, Driver, and Briggs page 1110 the word means receive(Aramaic). It it also translated as received(Hebrew) in Ezra.

Sadly, you'll see that BDB provides Ezra as an example of when QBL is "take", though you must look at the Hebrew entry (p.867), giving the Hebrew as a late Aramaic loan word. The Aramaic entry you refer to is simply incomplete (just look at the number of examples) and must be read with the Hebrew entry. The verb is not interested in the act of being given which is arnoldo's fudge, but being there (in front of it) to possess. See Dan 7:18 where QBL is paralleled with XSN, "to possess". So, no. Try again.

spin

You are wrong. Both entries list 'receive' as a definition. You are trying to force your definition on the word. The NKJV translates it as 'receive' in both cases. Your contention that it has to be 'take' is just wrong. By the way, I am not sure if I agree with what Arnoldo is saying about how it should be translated here (I may, but don't really know right now), but I do know that your claim that it has to be translated the way you want it to be translated is just wrong.

spin · 02-02-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Sadly, you'll see that BDB provides Ezra as an example of when QBL is "take", though you must look at the Hebrew entry (p.867), giving the Hebrew as a late Aramaic loan word. The Aramaic entry you refer to is simply incomplete (just look at the number of examples) and must be read with the Hebrew entry. The verb is not interested in the act of being given which is arnoldo's fudge, but being there (in front of it) to possess. See Dan 7:18 where QBL is paralleled with XSN, "to possess". So, no. Try again.

You are wrong. Both entries list 'receive' as a definition.

Think about what I said. It is the act of obtaining that is important, not the act of receiving what is given. This is where the problem is. The rest of what you are trying to say is of no consequence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

You are trying to force your definition on the word. The NKJV translates it as 'receive' in both cases.

That's jolly good of the translators. They are not dealing with the issue that we are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Your contention that it has to be 'take' is just wrong.

You are not trying to understand the issue. Look at an example from Jastrow (who provides "receive, take, accept"), "the mistress of the house who received us". Does that help you see what notion is in the verb? There is no necessary giving at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

By the way, I am not sure if I agree with what Arnoldo is saying about how it should be translated here (I may, but don't really know right now), but I do know that your claim that it has to be translated the way you want it to be translated is just wrong.

As you have proven so far unable to understand the issue, your evaluation so far is as meaningful to me.

spin

aChristian · 02-02-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

By the way, I haven't read through this whole post, but if you are trying to late date Daniel, you have to explain how it was translated as part of the Septuagint in 250 BC, long before 167 bc, if it didn't exist. You also have to deny Josephus' account about how the Jewish high priest Jaddua met Alexander the Great and showed him the prophecy about himself from the book of Daniel. As far as the historical questions, they have been answered already by conservative scholars. There are still questions we are learning more on, but the hard historical evidence supports the book of Daniel as a 6th century bc book by the traditional author.

You want to show that Daniel was translated into Greek in 250 BCE? Based on Pseudo-Aristeas perchance? Aristeas deals with the Torah and itself was written late.]

Aristobulus (~200 bc) says it was completed under Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247bc) by Demetrius Phalereus who died early in the reign of Ptolemy. That means it is done by around 280 bc. If you want to say that only the torah was translated, you have to argue the rest was done over a hundred years later. Seems like a long time to do a translation to me. It seems much more reasonable that the record we have is fairly accurate. It was done by about 280bc, the whole thing. Unless of course you have some new witness from history who tells us how the torah was done by 280bc and then in say 160bc there was a big project and they added the rest of it. I have never heard of any record of this. Although I don't believe all the embellishments to the story, Aristeas confirms the essential details, naming Ptolemy Philadelphus and Demetrius. From what I have read, the language also fits the time and place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You want to argue the fact that the Alexander story in Josephus is not spurious?
.]

What evidence do you have to show it is spurious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You too can take the Dan 11 test mentioned in this thread. If you can find a better historical context please do so, otherwise we have to date all the visions as having a terminus in 165 BCE.
.]

You are assuming that prophecy is impossible. I believe that is naive.

makerowner · 02-02-2008, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Sadly, you'll see that BDB provides Ezra as an example of when QBL is "take", though you must look at the Hebrew entry (p.867), giving the Hebrew as a late Aramaic loan word. The Aramaic entry you refer to is simply incomplete (just look at the number of examples) and must be read with the Hebrew entry. The verb is not interested in the act of being given which is arnoldo's fudge, but being there (in front of it) to possess. See Dan 7:18 where QBL is paralleled with XSN, "to possess". So, no. Try again.

spin

You are wrong. Both entries list 'receive' as a definition. You are trying to force your definition on the word. The NKJV translates it as 'receive' in both cases. Your contention that it has to be 'take' is just wrong. By the way, I am not sure if I agree with what Arnoldo is saying about how it should be translated here (I may, but don't really know right now), but I do know that your claim that it has to be translated the way you want it to be translated is just wrong.

Because of your thorough knowledge of Aramaic and Hebrew, or because it makes arnoldo's argument fall (even more) apart?

aChristian · 02-02-2008, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

That's jolly good of the translators. They are not dealing with the issue that we are.

You are not trying to understand the issue. Look at an example from Jastrow (who provides "receive, take, accept"), "the mistress of the house who received us". Does that help you see what notion is in the verb? There is no necessary giving at all.

]

I may take the time to understand the point you are making later, but I think you are just missing the forest by burying your face in one of the trees. The translators were dealing with the same issue that we are, accurately translating the text from Aramaic into English, and they translated it receive.

spin · 02-02-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

I may take the time to understand the point you are making later, but I think you are just missing the forest by burying your face in one of the trees. The translators were dealing with the same issue that we are, accurately translating the text from Aramaic into English, and they translated it receive.

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

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.