Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

6

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

Daniel 7:27 reads: ומלכותה ושלטנא ורבותא די מלכות תחות כל־שמיא יהיבת לעם קדישי עליונין מלכותה מלכות עלם וכל שלטניא לה יפלחון וישתמעון׃ First of all, this is not Hebrew but Aramaic. The third word from the end (in bold) is l-eh, with the suffix for the third person singular masculine. It could mean “to him” (that is: to the most high one), but since the ...


3

The Idea in Brief The third person masculine references in the second half of Dan 7:27 allude to "the Most High." That is, the Masoretic accentuation points to "the Most High" as the exclusive antecedent in the second half of the verse. For the same reasons, the Masoretic accentuation provides for the logical elimination of "the nation (of the saints)" from ...


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

The Idea in Brief The Jewish (and pre-Christian) understanding of the abomination of desolation was the desecration of the Jewish temple reconstructed by Zerubbabel. The abomination of desolation (or, with more literalness: the abomination of what precipitates the vacating [of holiness]) had the primary Jewish understanding through Antiochus IV Epiphanes, ...


2

I'll take a moment to briefly answer since you stated a previous answer of mine elicited the question, and since by my hermeneutic, there is no problem asking a question such as yours on this site because part of understanding a text is understanding how it relates to other areas of Scripture that discuss similar topics (though you perhaps assume too much by ...


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

Text critical perspective: The Four Kingdoms Sequence The concept of dividing the world into a sequence of four eras, and even associating those eras with four metals, did not originate with the book of Daniel. In the post-exilic period we find at least one Israelite text specifically using the same four metals in the same order for poetic or symbolic ...


2

First of all, the argument doesn't exist between the KJV and the NKJV, but between the NIV and all the other translations. The NIV IS a translation, and not a 'paraphrase', although biblical scholars(including Daniel Wallace) argue that ANY translation is a paraphrase, as idioms and meanings have to 'make sense' in the vernacular they are written in. Daniel ...


2

The Idea in Brief The Book of Daniel appears in two chiasms: one in Aramaic and one in Hebrew. Both sets of chiasms appear to be parallel in content and meaning notwithstanding they are not in chronological order (and thus had made forming the chiasms easier to construct). The historian Josephus makes no mention of the Hebrew and Aramaic chiasms, but he ...


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

To answer this question, one must address an underlying presupposition: that somehow the 5 Kingdoms merely represent political entities that were destroyed(or replaced) with future ones. Hence, the conclusion is "it all leads up to Christ", and an arbitrary conclusion that it ends with the Destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, from which time we have entered ...


1

Rashi, here, explains that in Daniel's vision, the horns of the goat represent Persia and Media, and the stars it stomps represents Israel. God, speaking to Abraham, also compared the children of Israel to the stars. See, e.g. Gen. 15:5. See also Deut. 1:10 ("the Lord your God hath multiplied you, and behold, ye are this day as the stars of heaven for ...


1

This is the verse: "Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." I think the point is being missed. Consider: What are we doing on this site and numerous other sites on the internet? (1) - I am learning from you and you are learning from me, ...


1

Thank you Jack and Tau. I will now attempt to qualify my position and will start by acknowledging the definition of the word chronology as a listing of events that occur in order with respect to time. An event may be recorded first followed by the time-period or vice versa. Both methods of recording the chronology is employed in the text. I do not think any ...


1

Although many sources claim otherwise, it is clear after examining the scripture, that the man whom Daniel encounters is NOT Jesus Christ. When people compare Daniel's vision of this angel to the similarity of John's vision of Christ in Revelation they do not seem to take notice of the differences in the details of their descriptions. Revelation 1:13 ...



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