|
|
Now we must move on in our study as the problems involved in Daniel 9 are by no means over. We must not deal with the grammar and punctuation of Daniel chapter 9 as found in the Hebrew Scriptures as compared with our Christian Bibles.
Let us look at Daniel 9:25-27 as found in the KJV and let us notice how time is measured by the KJV translators.
Dan 9:25-27 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks [69 weeks or 483 years]: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after threescore and two weeks [62 weeks or 434 years] shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 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. (KJV)
Answer for yourself: Don't you think it is a little odd to say the number "69" as 7 + 60 and 2?
Nobody talks like that. What the KJV translators did was compress two different time time periods into one and they accomplished this by using a "COMMA" between "seven weeks" and "threescore and two weeks." Instead of the "seven weeks [49 years]" being set apart from the "threescore and two weeks [483 years]" as found in the Hebrew Bible and Hebrew manuscripts the KJV translators added these two time periods together as if Daniel was prophesying about one long time period before the unveiling of "the Messiah."
You by now know from the previous article that through the artificial capitalization of "mashaich" and the insertion of the definite article "the" before the Hebrew word ""mashaich" the KVJ translators tried to make the passage in Daniel chapter 9 and the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks refer to the eschatalogical last days "Messiah" who was to come and bring peace to the world. But we saw that the Hebrew Scriptures contained no such idea and that the "anointed one" was not understood by Daniel to be this end time figure. But let us assume for the sake of argument that this "anointed one" is to be "the Messiah." That being the case for our futher discussion then we now see more clearly the rationale for the failure of the KJV translators to separate the "seven weeks [49years]" from the "sixty two weeks [434 years." The KJV translators had a problem on their hands in trying to make this prophecy of the Seventy Weeks come to fruition in the days of Jesus and in order to "stretch" the time period of Daniel 9 to the days of Jesus they resorted to creative dating of the beginning of the prophecy as well as creative punctuation of the texts. For this reason they would not acknowledge that the "seven weeks [49 years]" was separated in time from the "sixty two weeks [434 years]" as found in the Hebrew manuscripts.
Answer for yourself: What was the KJV translators trying to make sure that the reader of Daniel 9 does not see? By such manipulation of the texts and the failure to recognize a separation in time beween the first 49 years and the second 434 years the KJV translators were not only trying to make the reader not see that these time periods were separated but that each of them has their own "anointed one" or "messiah." In other words Daniel 9 in the Hebrew Scriptures refers to two different "messiahs" or "anointed ones." Of course this is very problematic if you are looking to Jesus to be the "one" Messiah or at least the end days anointed one which is supposed to come. Daniel was referrring to the unveiling of two different "anointed ones" at two different times.
Answer for yourself: Does Daniel describe these two different "anointed ones" differently? He sure does.
The first "anointed one" which is to come after the first week [49 yeaers] is called a "prince."
The Strong's Number is:
5057 nagiyd (naw-gheed'); or nagid (naw-gheed'); from 5046; a commander (as occupying the front), civil, military or religious; generally (abstractly, plural), honorable themes: KJV-- captain, chief, excellent thing, (chief) governor, leader, noble, prince, (chief) ruler.
It is evident that this "first" anointed one that is to appear after 49 years is royalty. He is a captain, a special leader, or governor or leaders. He is royalty and operates in some sort of civil government. This surely does not meet the description of Jesus in the New Testament. When Daniel mentions the second "anointed one" then there is no reference to this royalty. This leads us to believe when coupled with the artificial punctuation and separation of the two periods of time to come to the conclusion that Daniel is definately speaking of two different "anointed ones" and not one.
Answer for yourself: Why is reference made in Daniel 9:24-27 to "mashaich" or "Messiah" twice? This is so simple as you are begnning to see when you learn these things. Daniel was speaking of "two" different "anointed ones" or "messiahs."
This again is a problem for Jesus. If this prophecy according to Christian exegesis is speaking of Jesus then there is only one "anointed" one but Daniel is speaking of two. This make is less likely that Daniel could have any reference in this prophecy concerning Jesus. Daniel is saying that the "first" anointed one comes after 7 weeks [49 years] and the "second" anointed one comes after 62 more weeks [434 years]. Daniel again teaches us that the "first" anointed one is royalty and the "second" anointed one is not.
We need to now examine the classical Jewish translation of these verses and notice any similarities and diversities and when we encounter differences in the Hebrew text from it's supposed faithful translations we need to stop and examine them and try to ascertain the reasons why the concepts in the Hebrew Scriptures were not translated correctly in the later Greek and English translation. Now the text:
25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times. 26 And after "the" threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causeth appalment.'
The authors of the KJV chose to disregard a definate article here. It should be "and after *the* threescore and two weeks."
Answer for yourself: Why did the KJV have to do this?
If they left the definite article in, then it would direct attention to the fact that the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks should be regarded separately.
There are many things to observe in the above Hebrew rendering of the verse. Notice first of all that between "shall be seven weeks" and "and for threescore and two weeks" we find a SEMICOLAN AND NOT A COMMAS as we do in many English translations. This is done because the writer of the Hebrew Scriptures is denoting a change in time periods in the Hebrew; instead of one long time period of 69 weeks (483 years) he is saying that this civil ruler or King will come after 7 weeks from the going forth of the "WORD" to restore and build Jerusalem and then another time period begins consisting of 62 weeks then another anointed one will be cut off.
Answer for yourself: Is there proof that this Hebrew interpretation is correct? Yes.
First of all direct your attention to the next verse.
What does it say: "After sixty-nine" weeks or "sixty-two" weeks? It says "and after threescore and two weeks" or sixty-two weeks and NOT sixty-nine weeks which tells us again that Daniel had already envisioned at this time that the first week or seven years had aleady elapsed therefore in the continual counting then we have only sixty-two weeks and the final week or 7 years remaining. The sixty-two weeks and seven weeks are not to be put together as one consecutive period of time but rather two different periods of time.
But as if that is not enought we also have what is called an esnachta in this verse when read in the Hebrew. In order to understand the function of this esnachta we need look at the KJV for one second more:
"... shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks:" (v.25) Notice first of all that separating "seven weeks" & "and threescore and two weeks" is a "COMMA" in the KJV and most Christian translations of this verse. The use of a "COMMA" in this instance means that the periods of time run consecutively and are not broken. In the Hebrew Masoretic text however, there is a small diacritical mark called an esnachta which separates these two phrases. In order to understand this in your reading of the passage then you have to be able to read Hebrew which few Christians and Christian commentators are capable of it seems or at least know that this exists in the Hebrew manuscripts. An esnachta (a mark appearing as an inverted "u" beneath the next to last consonant of a word) is roughly equivalent to a semicolon and signals that a phrase ends at this point and that the next word is the beginning of a new thought.
NOTICE again that in the KVJ the use of this semicolan is absent and the writer fails to separate these time periods by using a comma but the Hebrew translation and the Hebrew writers does not fail to use this diacritical mark to denote a change in time periods.
The presence of this esnachta in Hebrew teaches us that the Hebrew manuscripts, unlike like the Greek or Christian translations, definitely points to a BREAK IN TIME AND EVENTS BETWEEN THE FIRST "SEVEN" WEEKS AND THE FOLLOWING "SIXTY TWO WEEKS." In this verse the esnachta is found in the first occurrence of the word "weeks." In light of the reference in verse 26 to the sixty-two weeks as a separate unit of time with a completely different and separate "anointed one", then we should understand the separation of the phrases as indicated by the esnachta and this means that we are dealing with two different time periods of times and two different "anointed leaders" and not "one." We have in the Hebrew "two" anointed ones and not "one." Said another way we have "two messiahs" and not one.
What you just saw is what few Christians writers or preachers know or seem to acknowledge if they do; namely, that the Christian translations of Daniel chapter 9 have been again forged on purpose to bring meanings totally foreign to the intent of Daniel. But Christianity is doing better it seems today for among the fifteen translations which take this into account and correctly punctuate the verse are the Revised Standard Version (RSV), New English Bible, Anchor Bible, the New RSV, and the Expositor's Bible.
The KJV translates Daniel 9:27 as "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, and in the midst of the week he shall cause the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate...." The structure of verse 27 is almost exactly the same as in verse 25. Therefore, if the authors of the KJV were consistent, they would have translated verse 27 as they translated verse 25 as "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week and a half week..." And that could be a correct translation if there was no punctuation there. But there is an atnah separating the "week" and the "half week."
Answer for yourself: Why did the authors of the KJV ignore the atnah in verse 25 but didn't ignore the atnah in verse 27?
Today's KJV ignores the fact that in the Hebrew there is a "atnah" or an "esnachta" that separates the 7 and 62 weeks, but the original KJV did not
Answer for yourself: What about the translation in the original KJV of 1611?
It is interesting to note that the original translation of the KJV (1611) separates the "seven weeks" from the "threescore and two weeks" correctly; sadly however it still capitalizes "mashiach" when the Hebrew does not but "one out of two" is not bad. The original KJV written in 1611 reads as follows "...shall be seuen weekes; and threescore and two weekes, the street shall be built againe..." And the 1885 revised KJV reads as follows "...shall be seven weeks: and threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again..."
Here are a list of more Christian translations that correctly separate the 7 and 62 weeks: New English Bible, Revised English Bible, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, The Bible: An American Translation, The Modern Reader's Bible, The Bible: A New Translation, The Anchor Bible, , New American Bible, The Expositor's Bible, The Good News Bible: Today's English Version, A New Commentary on Holy Scriptures, The International Critical Commentary, The Abington Bible Commentary.
Answer for yourself: So what exactly is the Hebrew texts telling us that most Christian Bibles fail to translate properly?
What we find in the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus read is that there are TWO DIFFERENT PERIODS OF TIME IN WHICH REFERENCES IS MADE TO TWO DIFFERENT "ANOINTED ONES" THAT WERE TO COME AND NOT ONE!
In fact, there is an esnachta in verse 27 as well. In this instance the KJV does take it into account and correctly separates the one week from the half-week in that verse. Let us look at the verse from the KJV:
Dan 9:27 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: [COLON] 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. (KJV)
Answer for yourself: Did you notice how the KJV translators in verse 27 interprets the esnachta correctly by it's use of a "COLON" after "for one week" thereby meaning a "separation" of time and events?
Answer for yourself: Do you find it strange that the KJV translators included the esnachta in verse 27 but chose not to in verse 25 yet there was one there as well? Was this done on purpose? Did they just not see?
Answer for yourself: Do you think that "theological agendas" were at play in the KJV translators failing to acknowledge this break in time in verse 25 and theesnachta which if they had they would have had to admit that the prophecy of the 70 weeks in Daniel chapter 9 vs. 24-27 referred to two "messiah" and that the time did not run consecutively?
Answer for yourself: Have all Christian translations of these Hebrew Scritpures omitted referencing this "esnachta." No..in fact the KJV 1611 version did not fail to notice it but included it. Let us see these verses from the KJV 1611:
Dan 9:25-26 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks; and threescore and two weeks, the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Answer for yourself: Did you notice that the 1611 KJV translated the Hebrew correctly for following the "seven weeks" we find a "semicolan" and not a "comma" as we would later?
"mashaich"But did you catch the mistake that the 1611 KJV translators did make?
They capitalized "Messiah" when the Hebrew texts never did! Let us remember what was said before:
"... unto the Messiah the Prince ..." (v.25) The Hebrew word mashiach means "anointed." Of the 39 times mashiach is used in the Hebrew Scriptures, the KJV translates it "anointed" 37 times. Let us remember that the Hebrew Scriptures do not capitalize words but yet we find the Hebrew word "mashiach" translated as "Messiah"[CAPITALIZED] in the Christian translation of Daniel and strangely we find it only twice in the whole of the KJV and we find that it is here in these verses in Daniel.
As noted the KJV versions of the Bible we Christians and followers of Jesus carry today does not read like the 1611 KJV.
Answer for yourself: Who tamperd with and changed the 1611 KJV? Who changed it and why? Could it have been a "theological agenda" at work trying to pass off Jesus as the fulfillment of these passages when as I am showing you that was never the intention of the original writers. The later editors of the KJV altered it to compress these two different time periods together to stretch the time period to the days of Jesus. By compressing the seven week period with the sixty-two week period into one period of sixty-nine weeks by failing to take into account this Hebrew esnachta these later KJV translators make sure that when you are reading Daniel 9:26-26 that you don't see:
In failing to interpert the Hebrew corectly they fail to render accurately Gabriel's message to Daniel that there are two anointed ones spoken of in Daniel 9:25-26.
Answer for yourself: When did this revision of the KJV occur?
Well it is hard to state for sure but if you consult the 1885 revision of the KJV 1611 Bible you will find that this version is even more correct to the Hebrew than the original 1611 version. This 1885 revision has a "colon" following "seven weeks" and unlike the 1611 that artificially capitalized "mashaich" as "Messiah" this 1885 revision translates "mashaich" correctly as "anointed one" without such artificial capitalizations. So we see that this revision and corruption of the KVJ was done following 1885 A.D.
Answer for yourself: Could this continued tampering with the KJV and forced capitalization be for a "theological agenda"? You bet!
In this verse the word mashiach does not carry with it a prefix for the definite article ["THE"]; therefore, the correct translation should read, "an anointed one, a prince." This same error occurs in verse 26. Additionally, since there are no capital letters in the Hebrew alphabet we can conclude that this may have been an attempt by the translator to impose an interpretation which is not supported by the text.
What you just saw is what few Christians writers or preachers know or seem to acknowledge if they do; namely, that the Christian translations of Daniel chapter 9 have been again forged on purpose to bring meanings totally foreign to the intent of Daniel. But Christianity is doing better it seems today for not all of our Chistian Bibles today translate this verse incorrectly when compared with the Hebrew.
Answer for yourself: So what exactly is the Hebrew texts telling us that most Christian Bibles fail to translate properly?
What we find in the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus read in his day is that there are TWO DIFFERENT PERIODS OF TIME IN WHICH REFERENCES IS MADE TO TWO DIFFERENT "ANOINTED ONES" THAT WERE TO COME AND NOT ONE!
In fact, there is an esnachta in verse 27 as well. In this instance the KJV does take it into account and correctly separates the one week from the half-week in that verse. Let us look at the verse from the KJV:
Dan 9:27 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: [COLON] 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. (KJV)
Answer for yourself: Did you notice how the KJV translators in verse 27 interprets the esnachta correctly by it's use of a "COLON" after "for one week" thereby meaning a "separation" of time and events?
Answer for yourself: Do you find it strange that the KJV translators included the esnachta in verse 27 but chose not to in verse 25 yet there was one there as well? Was this done on purpose? Did they just not see?
Answer for yourself: Do you think that "theological agendas" were at play in the KJV translators failing to acknowledge this break in time in verse 25 and theesnachta which if they had they would have had to admit that the prophecy of the 70 weeks in Daniel chapter 9 vs. 24-27 referred to two "messiah" and that the time did not run consecutively?
Answer for yourself: How would they have been able to stretch the prophecy to the days of Jesus if they had acknowledged this correctly?
"... shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself ..." (v.26) Once again, the verse should not read "Messiah," but "an anointed one" as we have discussed the absence of capital letters in the Hebrew texts above. Additionally, the Hebrew phrase translated here as "not for himself" should read, "and there will be nothing to him" or "he will have nothing." Even the conservative Christian scholar, Dr. John Walvoord, states that the phrase "is probably best translated 'There is nothing for him'" (Walvoord, John. Daniel, p. 230) The significance of this will be discussed further on.
There is also the issue concerning the Hebrew word karet, which means "to cut off."
Answer for yourself: Christians claim this refers to the execution of Jesus; but does it?
There are two instances in the Hebrew scriptures when this word refers to a righteous person (see 1 Kings 18:3,4; Jer. 44:7). Now hear this! In all other instances karet refers to an unrighteous person or to someone who has committed an unrighteous act. In the context of this verse, it seems clear that the one being "cut off" is not righteous, as the qualifying phrase, "he will have nothing," would be difficult to consider as referring to a righteous person.
The word in Hebrew is "karet," which literally means "separate." The only execution it could refer to is beheading (separating the head from the body). The word is often used to express spiritual excission/separation of a Jew from the rest of Israel. Sometimes this happens "after" criminal execution (e.g. Leviticus 20:2-3), so obviously it can't be the same thing as criminal execution. Often the word is used to indicate the separation of someone from his position. The Tanach repeatedly says that if a descendant of David is righteous, he will not be cut off (karet). For example, see 1Kings 2:4, 8:25, 9:4-5; Jeremiah 33:17; 2Chronicles 6:16, 7:18. But if a descendant of David or priests are unrighteous, they will be cut off (karet). For example, see Jeremiah 33:18; Joel 1:9. Therefore, if this verse is speaking of Jesus being karet, then that must mean he was unrighteous and was cut off from his (supposed) royal heritage.
Answer for yourself: Looking at the Bible itself and how the words are used within it does it not seem peculiar that this word for "cut off" that refers to one who is "unrighteous" is so eagely being applied to this "anointed one" by Christiaity which sees it's fulfillment in Jesus?
We will return to this point later in our studies when we deal with the identities of these two "anointed" ones.....one righteous and one unrighteous.
The verse continues: "...but not for himself;..." The Hebrew "v'ayn lo" does not mean "not for himself." The word "ayn" means "there isn't." The word "lo" means "to him." So the phrase should be translated "there is nothing to him," or "he has nothing."
I find it rather amusing that the second "anointed" one that was "to have nothing" left to himself was unrighteous and that Christian commentators for centuries wish to make this be fulfilled in Jesus. Kind of ironic when you think of it.
The verse goes on: "...and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary..." There is a very interesting and subtle illusion created here. Read the following 2 translations:
"And after threescore and two weeks shall the an annointed one be cut off, and he will have nothing; and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;"
"And after threescore and two weeks shall an annointed one be cut off, and he will have nothing; and the city and the sanctuary will be destroyed by the people of the prince that shall come."
Neither translation is more or less correct than the other, but they give different impressions. In the second translation, which is more similar to the structure of the original Hebrew, it is clearer that the cutting off of the annointed one and the destruction of Jerusalem happen at the same time. The first translation separates the events on paper thereby giving the impression that they are also separated in time. This is necessary in Christian translations because Jesus was killed 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Answer for yourself: So what have we seen here?
As Bet Emet has stated over and over again to our readership it is IMPOSSIBLE to arrive at the meaning of a Biblical text is one omits considering the context of the verse, the grammar of the passage, and the original meaning of the word and how the word under consideration is used in other places in the Hebrew Scriptures. As an ordained Pastor who knows of these things from years of study it pains me to say this but such poor exegesis is a trademark of Gentile Christianity and it is reinforced by our forged texts which cause us to believe lies instead of truths. I challenge anyone to learn and look at the Hebrew texts and tell me that these things listed above are "not so" and that we as Christians and followers of Jesus have a faithful, truthful, and accurate translation of Daniel 9 in our beloved & forged KJV and the host of other Christian translations that are equally purposely fabricated.
We are dealing with God's Word here folks.....God does not need to be misquoted or lied about! I want the truth about what Jesus believed and his Bible. I don't want a fake and I don't want to believe untruths about Jesus or God's revelation to me. I want to know the truth about the Jewish Messiah and if the shoe fits Jesus "well and good" and if not then "why not?"
Answer for yourself: Do you want such truth...or is the status quo acceptable where you sit in your churches and hear half-truths to which you and your pastors give "amens" while God weeps in Heaven for what has been done to his Holy Word and the truth concerning His Messiah? Well such truth begins with the Jews like Jesus and their Holy Word and only this way will we come to see how the apostate Essenes of Alexandria, Egypt and later Rome butchered the Bible Jesus used.
I hope that this has not thrown you into a spin. If you decide to get mad at anyone after reading this then your anger needs to be directed to the antisemites and Essenes who first corrupted the Hebrew Scriptures and later taught the Greek and Latin fathers more of their heresies. I hope you take this to heart and tell your pastors, families, and friends of the efforts made by Bet Emet Ministries to recover the truth about Jesus and God's revelation to mankind in an age of religious pluralism we live in today. Shalom.
bennoah1@airmail.net