kwrandolph wrote:Dear Steve:
It appears that you are struggling to preserve the teachings of a small English group known as the Plymouth Brethren and their rather nuanced view of prophesy—the rapture, the seven year tribulation, the millennium, after which the Ezekiel 38–39 war, after which the third temple: none, except the Ezekiel passage, of which I can find in Scripture. Maybe I’m too simple-minded, but there’s just too much eisegesis in that teaching for me to accept it. I look for the simple readings, exegesis. The only “evidence” for a seven year tribulation is taking Daniel 9:27 out of context with verse 26 and before. But if verse 27 is concurrent with the second half of verse 26 giving more information concerning the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD which it clearly fits and which the context seems to indicate, then that tower of speculation concerning the seven year tribulation, with an anti-Christ defiling the third temple midway through that tribulation, etc. etc. all comes tumbling down.
Thanks for replying, Karl. The final 7 year period given to the Jewish people is also in the NT book of Revelation. And it is explicitly divided into two 3.5 year halves: the 1260 days testimony of the 2 witnesses (11:3). When their testimony ends (11:7-13), that is the end of the 2nd woe (v14). Then comes the 3rd woe which is the beginning of the 1260 day persecution of God's people (12:6,14).
The Plymouth Brethren made a lot of mistakes, of course, but they had a huge positive effect on Christianity, and I am influenced by their teachings.
My point is that Dan 9 is not the only place in the Bible that mentions the 7 year period that ends the age. If it was the only place, that would be a strong argument against that teaching.
kwrandolph wrote:SteveMiller wrote:Isa 53:2 .. And there is no beauty that we should desire him. It is not uncommon for waw-consecutive to be translated as "that". "that we should desire him" comes after in time "there is no beauty".
Take the whole verse: “that he should ascend like a sucker (in botany, an unwanted growth from the root of a tree) before him, and like a root from an arid land, he doesn’t have good form and no grandeur, and should we look at him, that he doesn’t have looks that we should desire specifically him.” When we look at “that we should desire specifically him” is concurrent with “he doesn’t have looks” though you might argue that it comes after “should we look at him”. Other “and”s in the verse are clearly concurrent, not consecutive.
I have bolded and underlined the waw-consecutives in your translation above.
I disagree with your translating the waw-consecutive at the beginning of the verse as "that".
Waw-consecutives often mean "that" but not in the way you are using it.
xxx happened that yyy would happen - is a common use of a waw-consecutive.
But you are using it as a relative pronoun: Who has believed our report .. that he should ascend like a sucker.
I believe you are saying that the contents of the report is "that he should ascend like a sucker ...".
A waw-consecutive is never used like that according to my knowledge. If you have an example, I would like to see it.
I understand it as v1 The prophets gave their report. After that in v2 He came up as a sucker.
I also don't think you should translate the non waw-consecutive "and" in וְלֹֽא־מַרְאֶ֖ה as "that". (I made it red font in your quote). You are translating it in such a way as to try to make the "and" go away and be of no effect. "should we look at him, that he doesn’t have looks". It would be better to say your meaning as, "should we look at him, he doesn't have good looks", without the "that", but that is not what the verse says. The "and" disallows that. The Biblical Hebrew "and" is very important in determining the sentence structure. Besides acting as a connector, it also acts as our English punctuation.
In summary, we have 3 waw's prefixed to yiqtol verbs in v2. The first one says that he grew up after the report.
The next 2 are called weyiqtol's, but the consonants are the same as a waw-consecutive. Both of these are xxxx happened that yyyy should happen.
I call that sequential.
kwrandolph wrote:SteveMiller wrote:The Hebrew verb 'answer' has the meaning of turn
From where do you get that meaning? Do you have any Bible verses that have that meaning?
That's what HALOT says, apparently from congnate languages. See below. I bolded the relevant part.
ענה: MHeb., DSS; Ug. Ány )Gordon Textbook §19:1883; Aistleitner 2060; Pardee UF 7 (1975):363; UF 8 (1976):261; cf. Fisher Parallels 1: p. 300 no. 437 and 438, p. 363 no. 570); Deir Alla 1:13 Ányh (Hoftijzer-vdK. Deir Alla 212), OArm. EgArm. Palm. (Jean-H. Dictionnaire 218), JArm. Sam. (Petermann Gloss. 65), CPArm. Syr. Mnd. (Drower-M. Dictionary 24a); Eg. Án(n) intrans. to turn back (from), trans. to turn something e*.g. the hands), to avert (Erman-G. 1:188f); Akk. enuÖ to turn something round, change )AHw. 220b(; for a different ענה see Joüon Biblica 13 (1932):309ff; Kutsch ZThK 61 (1964):193ff; Delekat VT 14 (1964):37f; THAT 2:335f: basic meaning, to turn around, turn to face something cf. THAT 2:336.
HALOT did not give any verses with that meaning.
kwrandolph wrote:An answer is not necessarily spoken, hence to emphasize that the answer is spoken, “he answered and said”.
That makes sense. Thanks!
kwrandolph wrote:SteveMiller wrote:אָמַ֣ר and דִּבֶּר are very common in Tanach. When used together, the order is always דִּבֶּר first and then אָמַ֣ר.
I do not know the difference in meaning between the 2 verbs.
Again, אמר specifically refers to the spoken word, דבר has more the idea of expression, which can be by pointing or other non-verbal means. Usually, however, the expressing is done verbally. But to emphasize that the expression is spoken, אמר is used too.
thanks! makes sense
kwrandolph wrote:SteveMiller wrote:(In Isaiah 53) So, all the waws prefixed to verbs are sequential. 4/4
Not the first and third ones in verse 2, as I mentioned above, nor the one beginning verse 9, which gives more information concerning the action already mentioned in verse 8.
v2 previously discussed. In v8 he died. In v9 "and He gave with the wicked his grave" comes after his death in the previous verse. You can say it gives more info, but that more info is sequential.
kwrandolph wrote:When we take verse two in context with verse one, verse two starts the message mentioned in verse one, hence the first waw should again be translated as “that”.
as discussed above.
kwrandolph wrote:Out of the four waws prefixed on Yiqtol verbs, three are clearly concurrent, and the fourth can be taken either way. The context and grammar favors that last one to be concurrent.
Narration of history will be a whole different kettle of fish̦—the very nature of history is that one event follows another. Hence analyzing narration of history won’t give you an answer that can be convincing to others.
As I said, if it is all waw consecutives and all sequential, it means nothing for this test.
It may be that there are some non-sequential statements in the chapter.
If the non-sequentials also start with waw consecutives, that would be strong evidence against my point.
If the non-sequentials start with non-waw consecutives, but the sequentials start with waw consecutives, that would be evidence in favor of my point.