Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Daniel 7:14

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I consider that a stupid question. I don't determine by theology by majority vote.

    Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

    1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
      I consider that a stupid question. I don't determine by theology by majority vote.

      Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

      1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
      I am somewhat stupid from time to time, but I do value the time that many have invested in the study of the scriptures. Please note that nowhere did I advocate a majority vote. That would be really stupid, as the great majority of people do not even know how to read the languages in which the book of Daniel is written.
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
        That doesn't mean that Daniel 7 is referring to the same event as Matthew 24. Matthew 24 does not even refer to AD 30.
        Matthew 24:30 alludes to the enthronement of the Son of Man, which happened circa AD 30.

        Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
        All peoples didn't worship Jesus in AD 30.
        No one has said or implied that they did.

        I knew this would come up, which is why I did not address it in my last post.

        The enthronement of the Son of Man marked the inauguration of Jesus Christ's reign.
        Psa. 110:1 The LORD says to my lord,
        “Sit at my right hand
        until I make your enemies your footstool.”

        The making of his enemies a footstool for his feet is a work in progress that will ultimately eventuate in the fulfillment of 1 Corinthians 15:24
        1Cor. 15:20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. 21 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; 22 for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. [a present reality now in progress ― one that began circa AD 30] 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him [when the Son of Man was enthroned circa AD 30 as a fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14], so that God may be all in all.

        Comment


        • #19
          But I think if you are willing to acknowledge that Daniel 7:14 was not completely fulfilled in AD 30, you may as well acknowledge that it could instead be referring to the entire era. And if it is not entirely fulfilled until the future, it may as well be referring to the enthronement of God rather than the son of man.

          If this passage doesn't line up with 1 Corinthians 15:24, then is there no Old Testament passage that does?

          And most importantly -- the actual reason I started the thread -- is there anything about the actual grammar that points toward one antecedent or the other?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
            It doesn't say. Could just as easily be Satan. Could be someone else. I don't think it even matters.

            Could be Jesus

            It seems to indicate that God is either doing all the fighting himself, or else is helping Jesus fight. I would imagine it's the latter.
            You are reading into the text characters (Satan, Jesus) that were not actually mentioned in the text. First try to understand the text as the original author himself most likelly intended it to be understood. In the Jewish cultural context, who is the most likely subject of the actions I asked you about?

            You think Satan might have been the person that gave dominion to the leopard in 7,6. Is Satan even mentioned anywhere in the book of Daniel? No. You do not think this matters, but of course it matters. If 'Daniel' intended us to understand Satan as the person acting in this verse, why would he not even mention Satan anywhere in the whole book?

            You think Jesus took is the one acting in 7,11 7,12 and 7,27, but, of course, Daniel never mentions Jesus anywhere in the whole book. The one like a son of man is not present on the scene yet in 7,11 and 7,12. The Ancient of Days is the one acting in 7,22, but you again prefer to say that Jesus is acting there also. Within the historical context of the author, God is the typical subject of all of these activities.

            Do you see how you are reading things into the text rather than reading the text itself in its own context? And, again, have you found any scholars that consider your 'reading of the text' plausible?
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #21
              It doesn't say who gave the animals their power because that question does not matter. Further, you are wrong that Jesus is unmentioned in the book. And you are wrong that Satan is unmentioned in the book.

              Further, another book makes it fairly clear that Satan was involved:

              Revelation 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                It doesn't say who gave the animals their power because that question does not matter. Further, you are wrong that Jesus is unmentioned in the book. And you are wrong that Satan is unmentioned in the book.

                Further, another book makes it fairly clear that Satan was involved:

                Revelation 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
                Why do you keep avoiding my question? Have you found any scholars that consider your 'reading of the text' plausible?
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #23
                  Because I already said your question is idiotic

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                    Because I already said your question is idiotic
                    But you completely misunderstood my question. You seemed to think that I was suggesting that you should determine your theology by a majority vote. What I asked was if you were able to find any scholars who found your view plausible.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                      If this passage doesn't line up with 1 Corinthians 15:24, then is there no Old Testament passage that does?

                      And most importantly -- the actual reason I started the thread -- is there anything about the actual grammar that points toward one antecedent or the other?
                      The last question first: If there were any significant grammatical ambiguity in the text of Daniel 7:13-14, one or more the five exegetical commentaries ― the four I have already mentioned + C. F. Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament ― I have consulted would have noted it. I can post three of the commentaries via Accordance later so you can see for yourself.

                      As for an Old Testament passage that lines up with 1 Corinthians 15:24, Daniel 2:44 is cited at 1 Cor 15:24 in the margin of the Nestle-Aland Greek NT:
                      And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever;

                      Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                      But I think if you are willing to acknowledge that Daniel 7:14 was not completely fulfilled in AD 30, you may as well acknowledge that it could instead be referring to the entire era. And if it is not entirely fulfilled until the future, it may as well be referring to the enthronement of God rather than the son of man.
                      I am willing to acknowledge that the interpretations you have suggested in your first sentence are not only possible but are also more in accord with popular exegesis than mine is ― I say "mine", but it is really that of R. T. France in his NICNT commentary on Matthew, and his NIGTC commentary on Mark. However, I know of no commentary or translation that is in accord with the conclusion you suggest in your second sentence, for which you are searching in vain for some exegetical basis.
                      Last edited by John Reece; 09-27-2014, 09:55 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by John Reece
                        If there were any significant grammatical ambiguity in the text of Daniel 7:13-14, one or more the five exegetical commentaries ― the four I have already mentioned + C. F. Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament ― I have consulted would have noted it.
                        Not necessarily. Anyway, don't you and other people here know Hebrew? I don't really care about commentaries. I just want the text analyzed. In English the antecedent is ambiguous.

                        And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever
                        It seems to me like Daniel 2:44 is referring to the reign of Jesus, not the part where Jesus gives up the kingdom to God.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                          Not necessarily. Anyway, don't you and other people here know Hebrew?
                          The text is not Hebrew; it is Aramaic.

                          Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                          I don't really care about commentaries. I just want the text analyzed.
                          Which is what exegetical commentaries do.

                          If I were to give you a grammatical analysis without substantiating it by means of reference to some authority, would you take my word for it?

                          Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                          In English the antecedent is ambiguous.
                          Dan. 7:13 As I watched in the night visions,
                          I saw one like a human being
                          coming with the clouds of heaven.
                          And he came to the Ancient One
                          and was presented before him.
                          14 To him was given dominion
                          and glory and kingship,
                          that all peoples, nations, and languages
                          should serve him.
                          His dominion is an everlasting dominion
                          that shall not pass away,
                          and his kingship is one
                          that shall never be destroyed.

                          If there really were an ambiguity in the text, some scholar ― among the dozens who have been cited in both ancient and modern times ― would have noted such to be the case. If you were to read the comments, quotes, and references in the five exegetical commentaries I have referred to, you would know that practically every imaginable plausible view with regard every aspect of the text of Daniel 7:13-14 has been proposed by some scholar.

                          I challenge you to find a single scholar or a single translation that supports your thesis that the Ancient One was given authority by the Man (or "humanlike figure" ― see below) who was led into the presence of the Ancient One.

                          From Word Biblical Commentary, Daniel, by John E. Goldingay (page 168):
                          The humanlike figure comes in order to be invested as king (v 14). The sovereignty he is given is like God’s own (cf. 3:33 [4:3]; 6:27 [26]), the rule the first symbolic dream spoke of (2:44–45). He is given the power Nebuchadnezzar once exercised (2:37; 5:19; cf. 6:26 [25]). In serving him, people indirectly serve God, like the foreigners pictured as serving Israel in Isa 60:7, 10; 61:6 (Feuillet, Etudes, 454).
                          .....He is, then, a symbol for some entity given authority by God.

                          Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                          It seems to me like Daniel 2:44 is referring to the reign of Jesus, not the part where Jesus gives up the kingdom to God.
                          I cited Daniel 2:44 only in response to your request for an O.T. text that relates to 1 Corinthians 15:24; according to the editors of the Nestle-Aland Greek NT, Dan 2:44 does so; make what you will of the fact.
                          Last edited by John Reece; 09-27-2014, 05:46 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                            Not necessarily. Anyway, don't you and other people here know Hebrew? I don't really care about commentaries. I just want the text analyzed. In English the antecedent is ambiguous.
                            Oh, so you are trying to nicely ask someone to do you a favor by parsing each word of this text. Well, why didn't you say so? I had the distinct impression you were trying to insult people. Might want to work on your people skills a little bit. I could certainly do t
                            that for you, I would be happy to, but you should ask nicely first. Maybe even apologize for misrepresenting my question to you and then calling it idiotic. You see that kind of rude behavior does not incline people to help you. But I will make a gesture of good faith and help you out a little bit just to give you the opportunity to express a little thankfulness when someone helps you. This text is not Hebrew but Aramaic. Now if you want me to help you more, you know what to do.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I've been asking for the opinions of actual linguists since this thread started. If you can give me one, I would appreciate it. But it seems that all anyone wants to talk about is the opinions of theologians.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                                I've been asking for the opinions of actual linguists since this thread started. If you can give me one, I would appreciate it. But it seems that all anyone wants to talk about is the opinions of theologians.
                                Not so. No theologian per se has been referred to in this thread. Rather, only exegetical scholars have been referred to or quoted herein: i.e., scholars who comment on the linguistic aspects of biblical texts.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X