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 ...


6

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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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