Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Seth Knorr <ftbaccounts AT yahoo.com>]

Karl, 
  
Your discourse is very valid.
  
One common problem with figuring out Daniel 9:24-27 is that of chronology. 
The main problem is that modern chronology has been influenced greatly by the 
LXX, which changed the ages of different persons that where crucial for 
determining a valid chronology. A good book written on this topic is Martin 
Anstey’s "Romance of Bible Chronology." Unfortunately this book was written 
around the 1920's and therefore is out of print. 
  
The main point made in the book is when following the Tanakh as opposed to 
the LXX you will find a different chronology of dates, which are more 
accurate. For those that are dispensational, it is of interesting note that 
Scofield in his book "What Do The Prophets Say?" agreed with Anstey's work; 
although the chronology in his reference bible was never updated, and still 
shows the chronology of Ptolemy.
  
Anstey shows that due to errors in modern chronology it is possible that 
Cyrus could have given the decree without doing gymnastics with the numbers. 
Although the attempts made by Anderson, et all, are very fanciful, when 
reading the whole book he wrote you will see that he shows that G-d also 
worked in cycles of 365 and 360. The whole point of his book is to show that 
G-d works in 360 day cycles, then showing that G-d worked in a 365 day cycle 
basically goes against the point he was trying to prove.
  
>From looking at scripture, it seems very evident that Cyrus gave the decree. 
>(cf. Isaiah 44:28 & 45, Ezra 1, Ezra 6:14)
  
All other commands seem to be a re-statement of the original decree made by 
Cyrus.
  
Sincerely,
  
Seth Knorr
   
  
K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:
  Peter:

I do suggest that Nehemiah's Artaxerxes was the same one who sent
Ezra. The question is which Artaxerxes was that?

People forget that before the fourth century AD there was no unified
dating system, not even in the Roman Empire. Add to that that most
ancient records have been lost leaves modern historians choosing what
is the most likely date, which may or may not be correct, but most
likely within a decade or more (close enough that it is not worth
arguing about unless new evidence can be found) (also psychologically
people don't like uncertainty). The further back one goes, the more
slight errors can compound. Those dates may or may not correspond to
Biblical dates.

The only reason that I emphasize that is in this discussion we are
trying to fit secular dates with prophecy. While that is a noble
effort, it is doomed to failure because the secular dates are fuzzy.
Further, what does "the 15th year Tiberius" mean, the 15th year after
he ascended the throne, or the 15th year after his being named the
successor of Augustus and the start of his de facto co-regency with
Augustus ten years earlier?

As for the plain reading, all it says in Nehemiah, chapter two, is
that the king was Artaxerxes, it does not say which Artaxerxes. There
is nothing in the book of Nehemiah that I know of that designates
which Artaxerxes. It could be either one.

In conclusion, move Alexander the Great about ten years earlier, the
second Artaxerxes a decade or so earlier, read the two divisions
within the seventy sevens as concurrent, recognizing that the dates
are fuzzy, and you have an almost perfect fit between prophecy and
history, including the seventieth seven. I personally find the reading
based on the earlier dates with the divisions consecutive problematic,
to say the least. Actually, there are problems with both schema.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 9/14/06, Peter Kirk 
wrote:
> On 14/09/2006 00:21, K Randolph wrote:
> > Dear Rev. Bryant J. Williams III:
> >
> > First of all, which king Artaxerxes was the king who sent Ezra to
> > Jerusalem? In doing a googlewhack and reading several articles, I came
> > up with two possibilities, one which would have brought Ezra to
> > Jerusalem at 457 BC, the other at 395 BC.
> >
> > Of the two, the earlier one is used most of the time on online
> > articles, and that is entirely because of a reading of 69 sevens of
> > years to Jesus' death and resurrection. ...
>
> Not entirely so. If Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in 395 BCE, what is he
> doing there in Nehemiah 8:1, which appears from its context in that book
> to be in the same year, probably 445 BCE, as Nehemiah's building of the
> wall. (I don't in fact know why no one seems to suggest that Nehemiah's
> Artaxerxes was also Artaxerxes II.) Thus a plain reading of the book of
> Nehemiah requires the c.457 BCE date. Maybe the plain reading is not the
> whole story, but this is certainly evidence favouring the earlier date
> quite independent of any interpretation of the 69 sevens.
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
> Blog: http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
> Website: http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


                
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the  new Yahoo.com 
>From yonahmishael AT gmail.com  Thu Sep 14 18:20:43 2006
Return-Path: <yonahmishael AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com 
[64.233.182.188])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973474C008
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:20:43 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c31so2247801nfb
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:20:42 -0700 
(PDT)
Received: by 10.49.75.2 with SMTP id c2mr12614062nfl;
        Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.7.20 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4b24a3090609141520h3c04a069s55ab4dd90a6d57f6 AT mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:20:42 -0500
From: "Yonah Mishael" <yonahmishael AT gmail.com>
To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <450922B3.70609 AT qaya.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <c1a.46a57b8.3239f1e6 AT aol.com> <450922B3.70609 AT qaya.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Psalm 22 Translation Help
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:20:43 -0000

Peter,

Where does the image come from that is being used in this pdf? I find
it a little odd that this one line seems to be more fully visible than
any of the other lines in the fragment. Has it possibly been traced
over to make the letters stand out, at least in the digital
reproduction? Could someone have doctored the image that is being
presented in that pdf? Do you know of any other shots of this fragment
have been placed online for viewing? It just seems strange to me that
this is the only completely legible line in the fragment according to
that image.

Thanks for your insight,
Yonah

On 9/14/06, Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org> wrote:
> On 14/09/2006 00:44, JBarach AT aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Harold writes:
> >
> >
> >> HH: There is now suppprt from the Dead Sea Scrolls for the variant
> >> reading: "they pierced my hands and my feet."
> >>
> >
> >
> > Could you provide a bit more info please?  I have both the Vermes  and the
> > Wise, Abegg, et al. translations of the DSS if it helps to point me to a
> > passage.
> >
> >
> See http://www.torahresource.com/Newsletter/Ps22.16.pdf for an image and
> discussion of the DSS fragment in question. There is also a lot of
> discussion of this on the Internet, including in the archives of this
> list, which you can find with Google.
>
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
> Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
> Website: http://www.qaya.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>


-- 
Yonah Mishael ben Avraham
Joplin, MO
yonahmishael AT gmail.com