Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

9

The relevant bit of Daniel 10:3 reads as follows: ... וְהִנֵּה מִיכָאֵל אַחַד הַשָּׂרִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים בָּא לְעָזְרֵנִי ... ... but, behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me ... OP has two intertwining interests: (1) the primary question is about the meaning here of "one" in Hebrew; but secondarily (2) how does this relate to the ...


8

In Hebrew אחד is a cardinal number. The names of the days of the week are formed from cardinal numbers, so what we call “Sunday” is “day one” in Hebrew, and thus also in the Greek and Latin Bibles, but the English translators render this as “the first day”, only because this sounds more natural in English. But אחד does not actually ever mean “first”. The ...


5

Unfortunately... This is an interesting take on the idiom, and while the KJV does translate the Hebrew of Psalm 90.10 as 'threescore years and ten', the Hebrew simply says 'seventy years' (שבעים שנה). To understand the meaning of 'time, and times, and half a time', we really should stay within the individual context that we find the phrase, being Daniel ...


5

Antiochus Epiphanes. Basis An answer for the 'little horn' rests on which presuppositions the reader is willing to make about the book of Daniel. Having at least one presupposition is inevitable, no matter who you are, and that affects the way one reads the entire book. My presupposition is this: Daniel is about kingdoms, and the author names all of the ...


5

The Hebrew Bible uses the verb חָתַם in two ways. The first is the common use of seal as royal cachet. The idea here is that the king's edict is irreversible. Thus Jezebel (1 Ki 21:8) and Mordecai (Esther 8:8) seal the royal decrees as mandates "ex officio" from the king. The seal was therefore the explicit authority of the king. The second and related use ...


4

The book of Daniel is an early example of the apocalyptic genre, which includes the book of Revelation in the New Testament, and several apocryphal books. Books in this genre, though written over the span of several centuries, carried many similar features, including: The prophet receiving his messages through visions and symbols An angel guiding the ...


4

It's actually the opposite. Angels might be referred to as "sons of God" (see Job) but never as "a son of man." It should also be noted that his wording is awkward. 1 Enoch is a pre-Christian work, as you note in your question. To refer to an angel as a "son of man" goes against everything in Jewish thinking. They simply aren't. edit: Russell also seems to ...


3

The sizes didn't represent anything special themselves, but if you know them, then you know that this "image of gold" was not a mere statue - from the given proportions (10:1 ratio) you could conclude that it was an obelisk. Obelisks in ancient world could have special meanings and purposes. Some of them were considered "sacred pillars". Pliny the Elder in ...


3

They are certainly referring to the same individual. The name is the same Briefly addressing this point. The name for 'Nebuchadnezzar' is spelled a variety of ways in Hebrew, sometimes ending with 'rezzar', but even within the book of Jeremiah we find alternate spellings: -rezzar נבוכדראצור: Jeremiah (1) נבוכדראצר: Jeremiah (28), and Ezekiel (4) ...


3

The simple answer is yes to your question, they are the same. Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem 3 times and he took captives when he did so. God also promised to keep the captives safe and prosper them. This is Nebuchadnezzar the second who reigned from 605 BC – 562 BC, while Nebuchadnezzar the first reigned from 1126–1103 BC. So there isn't a son with the ...


3

Dan. 2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others. Dan. 2:41 Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron ...


2

The point of the context is that God's name will be glorified by Israel being blessed, and by Jerusalem being blessed. As such, I don't think it is necessary to see God's name in "Jerusalem". What is translated "by" in "by thy name" is actually the two prepositions governing "Jerusalem" and "Israel" - the Hebrew preposition "al". It usually means ...


2

I believe it is the Masoretic text that literally reads 'in' the clouds (עִם־עֲנָנֵ֣י) and the LXX simply took slight liberty to translate this as 'on' the clouds. Unfortunately the Dead Sea Scrolls provide no help in providing any information. Right after verse 11 and before v15 there is text corruption: there is a gap in the scroll evidence of more ...


2

My answer below will adapt part of what I wrote in response to this question. An answer ... rests on which presuppositions the reader is willing to make about the book of Daniel. Having at least one presupposition is inevitable, no matter who you are, and that affects the way one reads the entire book. My presupposition is this: Daniel is about ...


2

אחד in most cases matches our cardinal number one, but there are also instances where first fits better (e.g. Ez.40.2 in the first (ראשון) month on the first (אחד) day. Biblical Hebrew words never match 100% with one single English expression. You find the reference in Brown-Driver-Briggs, page 25, especially in paragraph nr. 7. But keep in mind, even ...


2

Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon, who attacked and defeated Jerusalem. He brought some of the Hebrews back to Babylon, including Daniel. This is the setting of the book of Daniel, told in Daniel 1:1-7. This alone may help to answer it seems odd that the king would simultaneously place an Israelite at the top of his >administration and attack his ...


2

Further argument for a late date Not only does Daniel seem able to prophesy events close to the time of 167 BCE accurately, although not the relevant events that occurred shortly after this time, but its narrative around the chronology of the Exile seems flawed. Chapter 8 is in the time of Babylonian rule, then Daniel 9:1 is the first year of Darius, son of ...


1

It would probably be more accurate to say that it is critiquing empire. In fact the whole Old Testament can be read as a polemic against empire and in favor of a limited government that stays within limited borders rather than trying to conquer all its neighbors (i.e. Israel's limited monarchy with definite borders "From Dan to Beersheba"). There's a book by ...


1

Unfortunately, the confusion arises only as a result of the pre-existing theological position in the source material. The article you linked to is trying to prove that the archangel Michael is Jesus, which is why it introduces this translation error, for it to then be able to appeal to it as an argument to support its claim. As many have already pointed ...


1

A rose by any other name. The notion isn't that it's in the name itself, but rather that there be an association made. Contextually, Daniel is calling for God's mercy on Jerusalem and His people, Israel, who are in ruin. Daniel's petition is that God be merciful not because Israel deserves it, but because God's name (i.e. reputation, etc.) is associated ...


1

Daniel 2:43 refers to ten nations united by "iron" mixed with "clay." Daniel 2:43 (NASB) 43 And in that you saw the iron mixed with common clay, they will combine with one another in the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, even as iron does not combine with pottery. The "seed of man" is human Government, if we accept the usage from ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible