Subject in Daniel 9:27 messiah or prince?

Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Subject in Daniel 9:27 messiah or prince?

Re: Subject in Daniel 9:27 messiah or prince?

Post by kwrandolph » Mon Oct 27, 2014 11:40 am

I Beleive wrote:"we higbir" the hiphil form of Gabar" means to confirm or strengthen, as in covenant. There is much disagreement as to who confirms and what is confirmed. the verb is used one time in the Tanach.


The verb is used many times, only once in the Hiphil. The Hiphil confers the idea of causative. In the other binyanim, the verb has the action of overpowering, of mastering, so the Hiphil, causative, has the meaning of causing to overpower, causing to master.

Seeing as the Qatal and Yiqtal conjugations refer to neither tense nor aspect, the use of the Qatal here doesn’t preclude its use in the imperfective aspect, namely that the action of causing to overpower takes seven years.

Off topic: I don’t see how this verse, nor this whole passage, can be used to support the pre-millennialist teaching of the seven year Tribulation. I suspect your gloss above is an attempt to force that meaning.

Karl W. Randolph.

Re: Subject in Daniel 9:27 messiah or prince?

Post by I Beleive » Sun Oct 26, 2014 1:46 pm

"we higbir" the hiphil form of Gabar" means to confirm or strengthen, as in covenant. There is much disagreement as to who confirms and what is confirmed. the verb is used one time in the Tanach.

Re: Subject in Daniel 9:27 messiah or prince?

Post by kwrandolph » Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:31 pm

R.J. Furuli wrote:Dear Carl,

I have the following comments:


kwrandolph wrote:Dear Rolf:

R.J. Furuli wrote:Regarding the beginning and end of the 70 sevens in Daniel 9:24-27, there is cuneiform evidence suggesting that the 20th year of Artaxerxes I was 455/54 BCE and not 445/44 BCE, as is universally believed. If this is correct, the 70th week ends in 36 CE when Cornelius, the first person of the nations, was baptized.


Two responses:

1) Was Nehemiah at the court of Artaxerxes I, or was he at the court of a later Artaxerxes? Along with that, I’ve done enough reading in history to realize that our present, university mediated, understanding of BC history is really poor. For example, did Thutmosis II live in the 15th century BC as claim Kitchen and most Egyptologists, or was he the Pharaoh Sesiq who looted Jerusalem five years after the death of Solomon, or somewhere in between? That’s a span of five centuries, and the majority of the evidences, not claims, that I’ve seen so far indicate that he was Pharaoh Sesiq. While the Persian history seems not as messed up as Egyptian history, can precise dates be claimed, and more importantly, defended?


RF: Nehemiah was at the court of Artaxerxes I. Several starting points for the 70 sevens have been suggested, but in my view, the 20th year of Artaxerxes I is what fits best.

Ancient history and ancient chronology cannot be proven, as you suggest. One problem with chronological issues is that old standpoints are repeated over and over again and never checked. As for the Persian chronoløogy, I have studied the Persepolis Treasury Tablets and Fortification Tables, as well as dated Persian business tablets and astronomical tablets—all together several thousand tablets. My conclusions have been published: Cambyses reigned 8 years (1 year more than usually believed); there are 5 years between Cambyses and Darius I (not 0 years as is usually believed); there was a cogency between Xerxes and Darius I of 16 years (not a normal succession as is usually believed); and Artaxerxes I reigned 51 years (and not 41 as usually believed). If this is correct, Artaxerxes I started to reign in 475/74, and not in 465/64, that is usually believed.


OK, I haven’t studied Persian history that much, but my understanding is that when Alexander burned the Persian royal palace, he burned also the the royal records, so that any reconstruction we make on Persian history is based on second and third hand sources, not first hand. Further, what I read is that even those second and third hand sources were reconstructions, not authoritative.

Nehemiah mentions that he was governor over Judea from year 20 to 32 of Artaxerxes, but when was that? When, for that matter, was the Babylonian Exile? The Bible doesn’t give us dates, and our reconstructions based on piecing together from other ancient histories are possibly decades off.

R.J. Furuli wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:2) The events of the seven years preceding Cornelius’ baptism don’t match the description of events as listed by Daniel in these last verses of chapter nine. But the prophecies do match the events of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD.


RF: On the basis of the chronology presented above, the 20th year of Artaxerxes I is 455/54. Sixty-nine sevens…


From where do you get sixty-nine sevens? Daniel 9:26 gives sixty-two.

R.J. Furuli wrote:… would end in the year 29 CE, when the Messiah would come; the middle of the week when sacrifices were terminated because the Messiah died, would be 33 CE…


Why 33 AD? Why not about 26 AD?

As you state above, “One problem with chronological issues is that old standpoints are repeated over and over again and never checked.” For example, when was the 15th year of Tiberius? Was it the 15th year of his sole rule, or did it include the 10 years of his co-rule with his predecessor? When exactly was the Jewish revolt? Was it exactly 66 AD or are we taking a consensus because the date could be off by a few years? Question after question.

R.J. Furuli wrote:…, and the end of the 70th "week" would be 36 CE. According to the prophecy, the Jews were given 70 sevens as a time to repent, and it is fitting that at the end on the period of 70 sevens (Daniel 9:24, 27), the first person of the nations, Cornelius, was baptized.


Was he the first? Weren’t there any proselytes among the 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost? Wouldn’t they have been the first?

R.J. Furuli wrote: From this year the Jews was no longer the special property of God, because the nation did not repent. The temple and the city surrounded by the Roman army in 66, as you indicate, and they were destroyed in destroyed in 70 CE in accordance with Daniel 9:26,27. The text does not say that at the end of sevens the city would be surrounded or destroyed.


It does say that the city and the holy place will be destroyed in war, and the treaty will be enforced through overcoming, an overcoming that lasts seven years, seven years of war and absolute destruction.

R.J. Furuli wrote:Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Basically, what I say is that our human computed history is not as accurate as we want it to be. Remember, 0 AD was supposed to be Jesus’ birth year, but now many historians put it at 7 BC. How many other dates preached so confidently in universities are off by that much or more? As a result, I look at all those dates with a ±10 years. That’s only up through Alexander. Earlier? Can be off by centuries.

In Daniel there are 70 sevens, or 490 years. Seven sevens after the beginning of that period we find the anointed prince—Alexander the Great. After 62 sevens from the beginning of that period, in other words we can add three to four years, Messiah will be cut off (killed). The last seven, a time of war, destruction and conquest, ends the period. I take the Bible as accurate, and man’s reconstructions based on partially missing data as approximate.

Karl W. Randolph.

Re: Subject in Daniel 9:27 messiah or prince?

Post by R.J. Furuli » Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:18 am

Dear Carl,

I have the following comments:


kwrandolph wrote:Dear Rolf:

R.J. Furuli wrote:Regarding the beginning and end of the 70 sevens in Daniel 9:24-27, there is cuneiform evidence suggesting that the 20th year of Artaxerxes I was 455/54 BCE and not 445/44 BCE, as is universally believed. If this is correct, the 70th week ends in 36 CE when Cornelius, the first person of the nations, was baptized.


Two responses:

1) Was Nehemiah at the court of Artaxerxes I, or was he at the court of a later Artaxerxes? Along with that, I’ve done enough reading in history to realize that our present, university mediated, understanding of BC history is really poor. For example, did Thutmosis II live in the 15th century BC as claim Kitchen and most Egyptologists, or was he the Pharaoh Sesiq who looted Jerusalem five years after the death of Solomon, or somewhere in between? That’s a span of five centuries, and the majority of the evidences, not claims, that I’ve seen so far indicate that he was Pharaoh Sesiq. While the Persian history seems not as messed up as Egyptian history, can precise dates be claimed, and more importantly, defended?

RF: Nehemiah was at the court of Artaxerxes I. Several starting points for the 70 sevens have been suggested, but in my view, the 20th year of Artaxerxes I is what fits best.

Ancient history and ancient chronology cannot be proven, as you suggest. One problem with chronological issues is that old standpoints are repeated over and over again and never checked. As for the Persian chronoløogy, I have studied the Persepolis Treasury Tablets and Fortification Tables, as well as dated Persian business tablets and astronomical tablets—all together several thousand tablets. My conclusions have been published: Cambyses reigned 8 years (1 year more than usually believed); there are 5 years between Cambyses and Darius I (not 0 years as is usually believed); there was a cogency between Xerxes and Darius I of 16 years (not a normal succession as is usually believed); and Artaxerxes I reigned 51 years (and not 41 as usually believed). If this is correct, Artaxerxes I started to reign in 475/74, and not in 465/64, that is usually believed.

2) The events of the seven years preceding Cornelius’ baptism don’t match the description of events as listed by Daniel in these last verses of chapter nine. But the prophecies do match the events of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD.

RF: On the basis of the chronology presented above, the 20th year of Artaxerxes I is 455/54. Sixty-nine sevens would end in the year 29 CE, when the Messiah would come; the middle of the week when sacrifices were terminated because the Messiah died, would be 33 CE, and the end of the 70th "week" would be 36 CE. According to the prophecy, the Jews were given 70 sevens as a time to repent, and it is fitting that at the end on the period of 70 sevens (Daniel 9:24, 27), the first person of the nations, Cornelius, was baptized. From this year the Jews was no longer the special property of God, because the nation did not repent. The temple and the city surrounded by the Roman army in 66, as you indicate, and they were destroyed in destroyed in 70 CE in accordance with Daniel 9:26,27. The text does not say that at the end of sevens the city would be surrounded or destroyed.

Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

R.J. Furuli wrote:Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Thank you. And to you too.

Karl W. Randolph.

Re: Subject in Daniel 9:27 messiah or prince?

Post by kwrandolph » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:18 pm

Dear Rolf:

R.J. Furuli wrote:Regarding the beginning and end of the 70 sevens in Daniel 9:24-27, there is cuneiform evidence suggesting that the 20th year of Artaxerxes I was 455/54 BCE and not 445/44 BCE, as is universally believed. If this is correct, the 70th week ends in 36 CE when Cornelius, the first person of the nations, was baptized.


Two responses:

1) Was Nehemiah at the court of Artaxerxes I, or was he at the court of a later Artaxerxes? Along with that, I’ve done enough reading in history to realize that our present, university mediated, understanding of BC history is really poor. For example, did Thutmosis II live in the 15th century BC as claim Kitchen and most Egyptologists, or was he the Pharaoh Sesiq who looted Jerusalem five years after the death of Solomon, or somewhere in between? That’s a span of five centuries, and the majority of the evidences, not claims, that I’ve seen so far indicate that he was Pharaoh Sesiq. While the Persian history seems not as messed up as Egyptian history, can precise dates be claimed, and more importantly, defended?

2) The events of the seven years preceding Cornelius’ baptism don’t match the description of events as listed by Daniel in these last verses of chapter nine. But the prophecies do match the events of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD.

R.J. Furuli wrote:Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Thank you. And to you too.

Karl W. Randolph.

Re: Subject in Daniel 9:27 messiah or prince?

Post by kwrandolph » Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:45 pm

Danielkim wrote:Do you have any prophetic chart showing your understanding of Daniel 9.


Nope, no chart. Daniel didn’t have one, so I didn’t think I need one either.

Is it possible to put a chart in one of these messages?

Danielkim wrote:the "people of Prince" is plural. but the subject in verse 27 is singular.

how could that be possible?


The “ruler to come” is singular.

Secondly, even though “people” is a noun referring to a group, the group is singular and often takes the singular verb.

However, in this verse, I think the singular verb refers to the leader as the subject, not the people.

Karl W. Randolph.

Re: Subject in Daniel 9:27 messiah or prince?

Post by R.J. Furuli » Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:14 am

Dear Karl,

Regarding the beginning and end of the 70 sevens in Daniel 9:24-27, there is cuneiform evidence suggesting that the 20th year of Artaxerxes I was 455/54 BCE and not 445/44 BCE, as is universally believed. If this is correct, the 70th week ends in 36 CE when Cornelius, the first person of the nations, was baptized.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Karl wrote:

Go reading with the flow. The closing subject of verse 26 is the “leader to come” of the people. Since he’s the last individual mentioned, he would be the natural subject of the verb.

The verb is the causative of גבר which means “to overpower, master” indicates that this treaty will be imposed by a conquering general. The same “leader to come” will cause the sacrifices to stop half-way into his seven year conquering.

This describes the seven year Jewish revolt of AD 66 where both the general who started the suppression of the revolt and the one who finished it later became emperor, hence “the leader to come”. Half-way through the revolt the temple was destroyed, stopping sacrifices. With the fall of Masada at the end of this seven year conquering, came also the end of Judea as a recognizable political entity. Thus ended the 490 year period that started with the command to Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem. The prophecy fits perfectly.

Karl W. Randolph.[/quote]

Re: Subject in Daniel 9:27 messiah or prince?

Post by Danielkim » Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:19 am

Do you have any prophetic chart showing your understanding of Daniel 9.

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

the "people of Prince" is plural. but the subject in verse 27 is singular.

how could that be possible?

Re: Subject in Daniel 9:27 messiah or prince?

Post by kwrandolph » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:35 pm

Danielkim wrote:I am now studying Daniel 9:27.

(וְהִגְבִּ֥יר (#1396 confirm : I would like to know what is subject of this Verb "Confirm".


You should get a better dictionary, as the verb doesn’t mean “confirm” rather “to overpower, master”.

Danielkim wrote:KJV Daniel 9:27
"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

וְהִגְבִּ֥יר בְּרִ֛ית לָרַבִּ֖ים שָׁב֣וּעַ אֶחָ֑ד וַחֲצִ֨י הַשָּׁב֜וּעַ יַשְׁבִּ֣ית ׀ זֶ֣בַח וּמִנְחָ֗ה וְעַ֨ל כְּנַ֤ף שִׁקּוּצִים֙ מְשֹׁמֵ֔ם וְעַד־כָּלָה֙ וְנֶ֣חֱרָצָ֔ה תִּתַּ֖ךְ עַל־שֹׁמֵֽם׃ פ


The context here is that it took seven years to impose a covenant, but it doesn’t tell which covenant. History indicates that it was the Pax Romana.

Danielkim wrote:in Verse 26th , there are two different parties apprear, one is messiah and the other one is people of prince.

I am confused what is the subject of verse 27. especially of the verb " confirm"

Either Messiah or people of prince or can be both parties?

Daniel Kim.


Go reading with the flow. The closing subject of verse 26 is the “leader to come” of the people. Since he’s the last individual mentioned, he would be the natural subject of the verb.

The verb is the causative of גבר which means “to overpower, master” indicates that this treaty will be imposed by a conquering general. The same “leader to come” will cause the sacrifices to stop half-way into his seven year conquering.

This describes the seven year Jewish revolt of AD 66 where both the general who started the suppression of the revolt and the one who finished it later became emperor, hence “the leader to come”. Half-way through the revolt the temple was destroyed, stopping sacrifices. With the fall of Masada at the end of this seven year conquering, came also the end of Judea as a recognizable political entity. Thus ended the 490 year period that started with the command to Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem. The prophecy fits perfectly.

Karl W. Randolph.

Re: Subject in Daniel 9:27 messiah or prince?

Post by Kirk Lowery » Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:54 am

Moved topic to General Discussion.

Top