George: Remember that I claimed that your theory is linguistically indefensible?
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, George Athas <[email protected]>wrote: > > I have no problem with Daniel 9 predicting AD 70 or AD 33 or AD 2012. It's > just that I don't see the text doing this. It seems to be discussing the > concept exile in light of the Antiochene Persecution. > Linguistically, the content of Daniel 9:24–7 is the opposite of exile, rather it is rebuilding the city and that from the time that the city is rebuilt till the end of the war destroying the people is 490 years. This is Daniel talking about the future, as the command to rebuild Jerusalem wasn’t given until long after Daniel left the scene. Daniel 9:25 מן מצא דבר להשיב ולבנות ירושלם עד משיח נגיד שבעים שבעה the only historical record of a command to rebuild Jerusalem, beyond just the temple and a few buildings to support the temple, was that given to Nehemiah. There is no textual nor historical evidence of that command being given earlier. Given the time frame, there’s no way that this can refer to the Antiochene Persecution. The people knew what exile meant, and the Antiochene Persecution wasn’t exile. It wasn’t even the destruction of the city. The next passage in Daniel started at the same time, according to context: ושבעים ששים ושנים תשוב ונבנתה רחוב וחרוץ ובצוק העתים* *ואחרי השבעים ששים ושנים יכרת משיח ואין לו There is no way linguistically nor historically this can be connected to the Antiochene Persecution. All our copies of Daniel reveal a uniformity about the content of Dan 9, as > far as I can see. > Thank you, that’s what I thought. > > > *GEORGE ATHAS* > Dean of Research, > Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia) > > Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
