View Full Version : Dan 9 "Mistranslation"
February 22nd 2003, 08:24 PM
What you think about this analysis, that there are mistranslations and that means that week prophecy is not telling nothing about Jesus.
February 23rd 2003, 04:17 AM
He's right that it's seventy septets, but this is basically what the NIV says, and what all Christian exegetes say. The King Jimmy "weeks" is most unfortunate, like so much in that translation.
But as for the rest, it's typical revisionism by unbelieving Jews to get around the fact that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. The New Testament was written by Jews (including Luke), and their interpretation was in line with Rabbinic exegetical methods of their day, before revisionism took hold.
Dee Dee Warren
March 12th 2003, 01:43 PM
Man, there is a lot here to say but it is more than the translational issues they point to that prove this to be a Messianic redemption passage such as the whole unavoidable Jubilee imagery. I have to agree that this is simply an attempt by unbelievers to get around the Messiahship of Jesus.
March 12th 2003, 05:23 PM
I believe in the Messiahship of Jesus but I also believe that Daniel's 70 x 7 had absolutely nothing to do with any propehcy concerning Christ.
Its not valid to link the denial of the 70x7 as pertaining to Jesus, with the denial of Jesus as Christ. There are many reasons for concluding that what happens at the end of the 70x7 cannot be mapped onto Jesus death, especially the destruction of the temple occurs a full 37 years after the death of Christ which is substantially more than 7 years.
It all relates to the time of Antiochus Ephiphanes, of course. The "Anointed One", or "Messiah" is of course "Cyrus", as identified in Isaiah (using the same word), and not Christ.
One of the BIG BIG problems with the KJV is that it uses the word "Messiah" to translated the hebrew "annointed one", in Daniel, but nowhere else in the entire OT. However, the phrase "annointed one" occurs in many other places in the OT, where it is not translated Messiah. Of course, it can be seen as a "type" for Jesus, but its primary reference was not Jesus.
Dating of the 70x7 was out by around 70 years, but then Josephus dating was in error by a similar margin, and no historians could produce exact dates during that era. So the 70x7 must be regarded as mystical rather than literal. There is a lot more to say, but the main issue is that the prophecy can't be mapped onto the era of Jesus, and no body in the New Testament ever attempted it either.
However. As was pointed out in Matthew, the events at the time of Antiochus repeated themselves. They repeated themselves in the destruction of the temple. And they repeated themselves in respect of Christ being cut off. I thus believe Daniel should be seen as an exercise in "typeology" - the describing of historical events in such a way that they represent types of future events.
Dee Dee Warren
March 12th 2003, 05:38 PM
My comment was not clear enough.. and I realize that there are some within Christendom who very incorrectly deny the 70 weeks validity to Christ. I still maintain that is impossible and dispute the remainder of your contention. The destruction of the Temple is not within the 70 weeks anyways (notice in the goals of verse 9:24 there is not one hint of the destruction of the temple). And if the number is mystical, any complaints that it does not work out to the death of Jesus are rendered moot. The Jubilee imagery makes it unmistakable and you are incorrect that the NT does not makes this connection.
I will say upfront that I cannot commit a lot of time to this thread and my comments are admittedly hit and run.
March 14th 2003, 12:55 AM
That's stressing me out man. I don't have time to read all of that.
March 14th 2003, 01:27 AM
Okay I read through it now. It would've been nice if they had ended the translations arguement when they where explaining their interpration.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.