Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dirk Frulla <fiveacorns AT yahoo.com>]

I am going to repost my question regarding Daniel 9:2. I did not have too 
much time previously to give you details. I appologize for this. 
 
My questions center around the NIV's translation of Daniel 9:2, how it 
relates to Jeremiah 25 & 29, and whether the NIV paraphrased the scripture - 
possibly leaving out some meaning. Let me cite some scriptures from Jeremiah 
first (since Daniel 9:2 references Jeremiah). To be clear, there are several 
questions in this post - all of which are grammatical Hebrew questions. Any 
help would be appreciated.
 
To start, Jeremiah 25:11 reads:
 
This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will 
serve the king of Babylon seventy years. (NIV)
 
Most Bibles actually render this scripture with a semicolon or period 
dividing the two halves of this compound sentence. It seems that when you 
read this scripture, grammatically speaking, the "seventy years" modifier 
attaches itself to "serve". So it is NOT attaching the "desolation" with the 
seventy years, but rather the servitude of "these nations". It is stating
 
1) "This whole country" will be desolate
2) "These nations" will serve the king of Babylon 70 years ("these nations" 
is a reference back to verse 9)
 
So my first question is this: Is this consistent with the grammar in Hebrew? 
There seems to be two subjects and two predicates here, and the 70 years is 
attached to the servitude. However, could it be read differently in Hebrew? 
 
Next, if we move into Jeremiah 29:10, it states:
 
This is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I 
will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this 
place. (NIV)
 
Notice that is says "for Babylon". There are a few Bibles (including the KJV) 
that render it "at Babylon". There is a clear difference in meaning. If a 
translator were to render it "at Babylon", then it is clearly meaning the 
seventy years would transpire at the location of Babylon. If a tranlator were 
to render it "for Babylon", then it has a totally different meaning, one that 
is compatible to the "servitude" for "many nations" in Jeremiah 25:11.
 
So my second question is this: What should it be? "for Babylon" or "at 
Babylon"?
 
Now, we bring it into Daniel 9:2. Daniel references Jeremiah, and then states 
(as it is translated in the NIV):
 
in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, 
according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the 
desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.
 
Notice that the NIV literally equates the 70 years with the desolation. 
However, I found that the majority of Bibles out there render it slightly 
different - and the difference changes the meaning a bit. For example, here 
it is from NASB:
 
in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, observed in the books the number 
of the years which was revealed as the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the 
prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy 
years. (NASB)
 
Notice that in the scripture above, it says, "for the completion of the 
desolations of Jerusalem". This statement focuses on the END of the 
desolation, not the desolation as a whole. This difference matters when we 
consider that Daniel also references Jeremiah - because Jeremiah seemed to 
indicate that it was "servitude" (not desolation) of "these nations" 
(plural). If you read it as focusing on the end of the desolations, it agrees 
with Jeremiah this way ... basically saying that the end of the 70 years 
would bring, as a consequence, the end of the desolation.
 
So my third question is this: Is there something missing from the original 
Hebrew when the NIV translates Daniel 9:2 - and why do most others translate 
it as "fulfull", "accomplish", or "complete" - bringing focus to the end of 
the desolation and not the desolation as a whole?
 
 
Here is the main reason for analyzing these scriptures this way: There is a 
massive amount of historical evidence pointing to 587 as the destruction of 
Jerusalem. Just about every history book ever written recognizes this. This 
evidence consists of agreement of several kings lists, business documents 
recovered from the Neo-Babylonian era (that establish the kings and lengths 
of reigns), astronomical diaries, and syncronization with other cultures 
(like Egypt). They all point to 587 as Jerusalem's fall.
 
If we take the NIV as it stands, equating the desolation of Jerusalem with 
the 70 years, then the Jews got back around 538/537, after Cyrus released 
them. That would put the beginning of the desolation (or the destruction of 
Jerusalem) at 607/606. About 20 years off.
 
However, if we take Jeremiah as saying the 70 years applies to servitude of 
"these nations", as the grammar seems to indicate, and if Jer. 29:10 says 
"for Babylon", then there is no issue - it agrees with history. But that 
means the NIV has either translated this incorrectly, or has simply 
paraphrased it without carrying over the entire meaning.
 
Thanks!


      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>From hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net  Thu Apr 17 17:15:37 2008
Return-Path: <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 5D8A04C019; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:15:37 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled
        version=3.2.3
Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net
        (elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.69])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34B084C014
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:15:36 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from [67.101.142.228] (helo=Harold-Holmyards-Computer.local)
        by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67)
        (envelope-from <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>) id 1JmbSB-0006TO-Da
        for b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:15:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4807BDEF.20407 AT earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:15:27 -0500
From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org >> \"b-hebrew-lists.ibiblio.org\""
        <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <394804.7241.qm AT web38903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <394804.7241.qm AT web38903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-ELNK-Trace: 
4d8cbcf25a45eb95a7d551d5673cf272239a348a220c2609931d9655a3309341b020251394f73a47548b785378294e88350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 67.101.142.228
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] repost of full question
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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, 17 Apr 2008 21:15:37 -0000

Dirk,

The NIV of Daniel 9:2 seems fine. It justs states things in more normal=20
English than the KJV. The text is talking about the number of years that =

Jerusalem's devastation would last. Yes, the city was attacked in 587.=20
But it was also attacked by Nebuchadnezzar in 605, when Daniel and=20
others went into exile. The dating is in a rounded number. How desolated =

does it have to be to be desolated? Jehoiakim reigned from 609-598, and=20
Jehoiachin from 598-597:

2Kings 24:1 In his days King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came up;=20
Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and=20
rebelled against him.
2Kings 24:2 The LORD sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, bands of=20
the Arameans, bands of the Moabites, and bands of the Ammonites; he sent =

them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD that =

he spoke by his servants the prophets.
2Kings 24:3 Surely this came upon Judah at the command of the LORD, to=20
remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, for all that he=20
had committed,
2Kings 24:4 and also for the innocent blood that he had shed; for he=20
filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD was not willing to=20
pardon.
2Kings 24:5 Now the rest of the deeds of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, =

are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah?
2Kings 24:6 So Jehoiakim slept with his ancestors; then his son=20
Jehoiachin succeeded him.
2Kings 24:7 The king of Egypt did not come again out of his land, for=20
the king of Babylon had taken over all that belonged to the king of=20
Egypt from the Wadi of Egypt to the River Euphrates.
2Kings 24:8 =B6 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign;=
=20
he reigned three months in Jerusalem. His mother=92s name was Nehushta=20
daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2Kings 24:9 He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, just as his=20
father had done.
2Kings 24:10 =B6 At that time the servants of King Nebuchadnezzar of=20
Babylon came up to Jerusalem, and the city was besieged.
2Kings 24:11 King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came to the city, while his=20
servants were besieging it;
2Kings 24:12 King Jehoiachin of Judah gave himself up to the king of=20
Babylon, himself, his mother, his servants, his officers, and his palace =

officials. The king of Babylon took him prisoner in the eighth year of=20
his reign.
2Kings 24:13 =B6 He carried off all the treasures of the house of the=20
LORD, and the treasures of the king=92s house; he cut in pieces all the=20
vessels of gold in the temple of the LORD, which King Solomon of Israel=20
had made, all this as the LORD had foretold.
2Kings 24:14 He carried away all Jerusalem, all the officials, all the=20
warriors, ten thousand captives, all the artisans and the smiths; no one =

remained, except the poorest people of the land.
2Kings 24:15 He carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon; the king=92s mother, =

the king=92s wives, his officials, and the elite of the land, he took int=
o=20
captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon.
2Kings 24:16 The king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon all the men=20
of valor, seven thousand, the artisans and the smiths, one thousand, all =

of them strong and fit for war.
2Kings 24:17 The king of Babylon made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin=92s uncle,=20
king in his place, and changed his name to Zedekiah.


Dan. 1:1 In the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah, King =

Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.
Dan. 1:2 The Lord let King Jehoiakim of Judah fall into his power, as=20
well as some of the vessels of the house of God. These he brought to the =

land of Shinar, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his gods.
Dan. 1:3 Then the king commanded his palace master Ashpenaz to bring=20
some of the Israelites of the royal family and of the nobility,
Dan. 1:4 young men without physical defect and handsome, versed in every =

branch of wisdom, endowed with knowledge and insight, and competent to=20
serve in the king=92s palace; they were to be taught the literature and=20
language of the Chaldeans.

So Nebuchadnezzar was ruling over and desolating Israel years before 587 =

B.C.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard

> I am going to repost my question regarding Daniel 9:2. I did not have t=
oo much time previously to give you details. I appologize for this.=20
> =20
> My questions center around the NIV's translation of Daniel 9:2, how it =
relates to Jeremiah 25 & 29, and whether the NIV paraphrased the scriptur=
e - possibly leaving out some meaning. Let me cite some scriptures from J=
eremiah first (since Daniel 9:2 references Jeremiah). To be clear, there =
are several questions in this post - all of which are grammatical Hebrew =
questions. Any help would be appreciated.
> =20
> To start, Jeremiah 25:11 reads:
> =20
> This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations =
will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. (NIV)
> =20
> Most Bibles actually render this scripture with a semicolon or period d=
ividing the two halves of this compound sentence. It seems that when you =
read this scripture, grammatically speaking, the "seventy years" modifier=
 attaches itself to "serve". So it is NOT attaching the "desolation" with=
 the seventy years, but rather the servitude of "these nations". It is st=
ating
> =20
> 1) "This whole country" will be desolate
> 2) "These nations" will serve the king of Babylon 70 years ("these nati=
ons" is a reference back to verse 9)
> =20
> So my first question is this: Is this consistent with the grammar in He=
brew? There seems to be two subjects and two predicates here, and the 70 =
years is attached to the servitude. However, could it be read differently=
 in Hebrew?=20
> =20
> Next, if we move into Jeremiah 29:10, it states:
> =20
> This is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babyl=
on, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back =
to this place. (NIV)
> =20
> Notice that is says "for Babylon". There are a few Bibles (including th=
e KJV) that render it "at Babylon". There is a clear difference in meanin=
g. If a translator were to render it "at Babylon", then it is clearly mea=
ning the seventy years would transpire at the location of Babylon. If a t=
ranlator were to render it "for Babylon", then it has a totally different=
 meaning, one that is compatible to the "servitude" for "many nations" in=
 Jeremiah 25:11.
> =20
> So my second question is this: What should it be? "for Babylon" or "at =
Babylon"?
> =20
> Now, we bring it into Daniel 9:2. Daniel references Jeremiah, and then =
states (as it is translated in the NIV):
> =20
> in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptur=
es, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that=
 the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.
> =20
> Notice that the NIV literally equates the 70 years with the desolation.=
 However, I found that the majority of Bibles out there render it slightl=
y different - and the difference changes the meaning a bit. For example, =
here it is from NASB:
> =20
> in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, observed in the books the nu=
mber of the years which was revealed as the word of the LORD to Jeremiah =
the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, s=
eventy years. (NASB)
> =20
> Notice that in the scripture above, it says, "for the completion of the=
 desolations of Jerusalem". This statement focuses on the END of the deso=
lation, not the desolation as a whole. This difference matters when we co=
nsider that Daniel also references Jeremiah - because Jeremiah seemed to =
indicate that it was "servitude" (not desolation) of "these nations" (plu=
ral). If you read it as focusing on the end of the desolations, it agrees=
 with Jeremiah this way ... basically saying that the end of the 70 years=
 would bring, as a consequence, the end of the desolation.
> =20
> So my third question is this: Is there something missing from the origi=
nal Hebrew when the NIV translates Daniel 9:2 - and why do most others tr=
anslate it as "fulfull", "accomplish", or "complete" - bringing focus to =
the end of the desolation and not the desolation as a whole?
> =20
> =20
> Here is the main reason for analyzing these scriptures this way: There =
is a massive amount of historical evidence pointing to 587 as the destruc=
tion of Jerusalem. Just about every history book ever written recognizes =
this. This evidence consists of agreement of several kings lists, busines=
s documents recovered from the Neo-Babylonian era (that establish the kin=
gs and lengths of reigns), astronomical diaries, and syncronization with =
other cultures (like Egypt). They all point to 587 as Jerusalem's fall.
> =20
> If we take the NIV as it stands, equating the desolation of Jerusalem w=
ith the 70 years, then the Jews got back around 538/537, after Cyrus rele=
ased them. That would put the beginning of the desolation (or the destruc=
tion of Jerusalem) at 607/606. About 20 years off.
> =20
> However, if we take Jeremiah as saying the 70 years applies to servitud=
e of "these nations", as the grammar seems to indicate, and if Jer. 29:10=
 says "for Babylon", then there is no issue - it agrees with history. But=
 that means the NIV has either translated this incorrectly, or has simply=
 paraphrased it without carrying over the entire meaning.
> =20
> Thanks!
>
>
>       _________________________________________________________________=
___________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and=20
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;=
_ylt=3DAhu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>  =20