Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Dirk,
> Harold,
>  
> My appologies for that last email. I must have hit a wrong shortcut combo on my keyboard by accident and it sent an incomplete response. Sorry :).
>
> I am glad you are starting to see what I am saying. However, let me say a few more words. 
>  
> I'm not looking for help in Daniel 9:2 for this theory. I am looking for consistency. I see most Bibles render Daniel 9:2 in such a way that it leaves the sense of relating the END of the 70 years with END of devastations of Jerusalem. But some Bibles equate them. I am taking issue with the Bibles that equate them because they don't match a plain reading of Jeremiah, and they do not match history very well.
>   

HH: I think that so many Bibles say that the desolations of Jerusalem 
last 70 years because that is what Daniel meant. There are parallel 
passages to support this:

Zechariah 7:5 "Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, 
'When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months these 
seventy years, was it actually for Me that you fasted?

2Chr. 36:20 He took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the 
sword, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the 
establishment of the kingdom of Persia,
2Chr. 36:21 to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, 
until the land had made up for its sabbaths. All the days that it lay 
desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.

HH: These are important passages showing that Israel's punishment lasted 
70 years.

HH: Here's Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:

9:1-3 Daniel learned from the books of the prophets, especially from 
Jeremiah, that the desolation of Jerusalem would continue seventy years, 
which were drawing to a close. God's promises are to encourage our 
prayers, not to make them needless; and when we see the performance of 
them approaching, we should more earnestly plead them with God.

HH: Here is John MacArthur writing on these passages:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg27-24.htm

The inhabitants of southern kingdom of Judah were later taken captive 
by  the Babylonians--the first of four great Gentile world empires: 
Babylon,  Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (cf. Dan. 7:1-8). That captivity 
began about  605  B. C. when King Nebuchadnezzar started what became a 
series of  three significant deportations from Judah. In the first 
deportation Nebuchadnezzer carried away the young men from among the 
nobles and princes  of Judah. Among them were four young men named 
Daniel, Mishael, Hananiah,  and Azariah. The Babylonians renamed them 
Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach,  and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). Although a 
captive, Daniel remained fully  committed to the God of Israel. As a 
result of his commitment and the  quality of his character he eventually 
became the prime minister of Babylon.

At the time the prophecy recorded in Daniel 9 was given, the Babylonian  
Empire had fallen to the Medo-Persian Empire. A king named Cyrus (also  
titled Darius)  was in power. Although the Jewish exiles were now the  
captives of the Medo-Persians, Daniel retained his position as prime  
minister because of his integrity. Some scholars believe Daniel received 
his revelation in the year 537  B. C., which was just about seventy 
years  after Daniel had been taken captive.

B. The Concern of Daniel

That seventy year mark was important to Daniel: "I . . . understood  by 
books the number of the years, concerning which the word of the Lord 
came  to Jeremiah, the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years 
in the  desolations of Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:2). Jeremiah prophesied that 
the  people from Judah would be in captivity for seventy years (Jer. 
25:11; 29:10). Daniel knew that if the seventy year period began with 
the first  deportation, it was nearly over (though he didn't know if the 
seventy years  dated from 605, 597, or 586  B. C. --the years of the 
three significant  deportations).

HH: Keil's older commentary says that the wording in Dan 9:2 depends on 
Jer 25:12, not 29:10. He says that Jerusalem did not certainly lie in 
ruins for seventy years; the word is not thus to be interpreted, but is 
chosen partly with regard to the existing state of Jerusalem, and partly 
with reference to the words of Jer 25:9, 11. Yet the desolation began 
wih the first taking of Jerusalem, and the deportation of Daniel and his 
companions and a part of the sacred vessels of the temple, in the fourth 
year of Jehoiakim (606 B.C.).

HH: Keil speaks specifically of the "seventy years of exile" for Israel, 
and so do most Bible
scholars.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard

> Whether Jeremiah and Daniel were written down before or after the events they describe is irrelevant to me. What I would like to see (hopefully) is Daniel, who cites Jeremiah, agree with the scriptures in Jeremiah, and at the same time reflect historical accuracy. (I need to say some things about historical accuracy, but K. Randolph has responded to this email post citing historical accuracy, so I will do it there) So when I cite Daniel 9:2 from the NIV (and some of the translations you cited), I am saying that I think something was left out of the translation - mainly the thought of "fulfillment" of the desolations being tied to the end of the 70 years. When this thought is included, it changes the meaning of the scripture to one that definitely agrees with Jeremiah. 
>  
> Take for example one of the translations you cited - the New Living Translation. It reads:
>
> 2 During the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, learned from reading 
> the word of the Lord, as revealed to Jeremiah the prophet, that 
> Jerusalem **must lie desolate for seventy years.**
>
> This is an example of Daniel 9:2 that I find hard to accept. Why? Because 
> Jerusalem was desolated in 587. The Jews returned in 538/537. This is 50 
> years. Jeremiah could be stating a round number/estimate, but that's 20 years 
> off. It doesn't agree with history.
>
> You also cited the Holman Christian Standard Bible:
>
> 2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the books 
> according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet that the 
> number of **years for the desolation of Jerusalem would be 70.**
>
> This poses the same problem. It flat out equates says that Jerusalem's desolation would be 70 years. Now, with this version of 
> Daniel 9:2, you may be able to get around it. The way you would do that is by saying the word rendered "desolation" 
> didn't mean complete desolation. Rather, it meant partial desolation, perhaps when the Babylonians first came up against 
> Jerusalem in the 4th year of Jehoiakim, which is around 606/605. I have no problem with this interpretation of 
> "desolation". But I might add, that it essentially re-defines "desolation" to mean something more like 
> "servitude". After all, it describes a situation where Babylon comes against Jerusalem in the 4th year of Jehoiakim, 
> does a little damage, subjugates the nation, and then leaves. Like you said in your first response, "How desolated does it 
> have to be to be desolated?" This is the same thing as a vassal - which is what I am saying. Notice, you can't really do 
> that with the New Living
>  Translations' version of Daniel 9:2 because it doesn't give you the liberty of redefining 
> "desolation", mainly because of the word "lie" inserted in the verse. In any 
> case, if you take this route then you have to assume 70 is a round number. From 606/605 to 
> 538/537, is approx 69 years. REALLY CLOSE. So I can see the argument being that it is a round 
> number. In this case it would make sense.
>
> Just for a second, take a look at it from an interlinear:
>
> "in year of one to reign of him I Daniel understood in scrolls number of  the 
> years which became word of Yahweh to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill of desertions of 
> Jereusalem seventy year."
>
> The Hebrew word rendered fulfill is strong number H4390. Here is the 
> definition (I am pasting it, and I'm not sure if the Hebrew characters will 
> go through on the mailing list):
>
> H4390
> מלא מלא
> mâlê' mâlâ'
> maw-lay', maw-law'
> A primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide 
> application (literally and figuratively): - accomplish, confirm, + 
> consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X 
> draw, give in, go) fully (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, 
> furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, 
> take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.
>
> There is a clear reference to the end of the period, its completion, its accomplishment. I will paraphrase - 'I understood from the word of Yahweh through Jeremiah the prophet that it would be seventy years before the desolation would be fulfilled (brought to and end, completed, accomplished, etc.)'. This sense avoids any equation of the 70 years with the desolations and simply states, when the 70 years ended, the desolations could now end. 
>
> And this is what I am getting at - if it is read that way (with the sense of strong 
> number H4390 left in the verse), it does not contradict Jeremiah or history. Yes, 
> Jeremiah states that Jerusalem would be desolate. But the seventy years was to be 
> measured by way of servitude of many nations toward Babylon - Jeremiah 29:10 says 
> "for Babylon".
>
> I think the context of Daniel 9 also supports this. Remember the order of events I was speaking of earlier. That order is expressed clearly in Jeremiah 25:12 and Jeremiah 29:10-13. 
>
> If we accept this statement: "Jerusalem would lie desolate 70 years.", then 
> we natually have to discard our historical evidence - which is pretty massive.
>
>
> See what I mean? I would like it all to agree. 
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
> To: b-hebrew-lists.ibiblio.org <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 5:35:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] repost of full question
>
> Dirk,
>
> O.K., I understand your theory, but I don't think you get much help from 
> Dan 9:2. Some translations don't use idiomatic English. Here is the 
> Holman Christian Standard Bible:
>
> 2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the books 
> according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet that the 
> number of years for the desolation of Jerusalem would be 70.
>
> HH: Here is the New Living Translation (NLT):
>
> 2 During the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, learned from reading 
> the word of the Lord, as revealed to Jeremiah the prophet, that 
> Jerusalem must lie desolate for seventy years.
>
> HH: Here is the New Century Version:
>
> 2 During Darius' first year as king, I, Daniel, was reading the 
> Scriptures. I saw that the Lord told Jeremiah that Jerusalem would be 
> empty ruins for seventy years.
>
> HH: Here is the Message:
>
> In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, was meditating on the 
> Scriptures that gave, according to the Word of God to the prophet 
> Jeremiah, the number of years that Jerusalem had to lie in ruins, 
> namely, seventy.
>
> HH: Here is the New American Bible (NAB):
>
> 2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, tried to understand in the 
> Scriptures the counting of the years of which the LORD spoke to the 
> prophet Jeremiah: that for the ruins of Jerusalem seventy years must be 
> fulfilled.
>
> HH: Daniel's prophecy of 490 years for Israel (70 7's) is based on the 
> earlier prophecy of 70 years for Israel? To make the 70 years not 
> necessarily relevant for Israel would make the 490 years not necessarily 
> so, but they are clearly all about Israel.
>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
>
>
>   
> > Thanks for responding again!
> >
> > Sorry, I'm not good at going through the emails and quoting, so I'll just 
> > quote up here.
> >
> > You said: "HH: Isn't that what NIV is saying: the end of the desolations 
> > correspond to the end of the 70 years?"
> >
> > If it were saying that, then I wouldn't have an issue. I am saying it looks like Daniel 
> > 9:2 is saying, when "fulfill" is left in the scripture, that the end of the 
> > 70 years would bring an end of the desolations, BUT that's it. Not an equating of the 
> > two time periods. Not saying that Jerusalem would lie in ruins for 70 years, just that 
> > the end of one period would, by consequense, bring the end of the other period. Let's 
> > just say (for the sake of argument/illustration) that Babylon destroyed Jerusalem in, 
> > say, 549 - 10 years before Babylon itself fell to the Persians. So Jerusalem would be 
> > desolate only 10 years (maybe a little longer if you factor in the trip from Babylon 
> > back to Jerusalem). In this case, I would still say that Jeremiah was right. Even 
> > though Jerusalem was lying desolate - paying off its sabbaths as 2 Chronicles 36:21 
> > says, for only 10 years, the **servitude** of the **many nations** to Babylon would 
> > have started long ago - when it
> >  started conquering to make vassal states out of the nations. I would even 
> > argue that the servitude of the many nations started before Jerusalem was 
> > made a vassal, since Assyria was take in 609. The focus in Jeremiah seems 
> > pointed toward Babylon and its reign over the nations.
> >
> > Yes, I agree, Judah was one of those nations. And it did become desolated, as Jeremiah states. But I don't see where the seventy years is equated with the desolations of Jerusalem - it seems to only be equated to the "servitude" of all the "nations round about" (Jer 25:9). 
> >
> > Here is Jeremiah 25:11 from the KJV:
> >
> > "And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations 
> > shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
> > Because it is essentially two sentences here, I see:
> > 1) "this whole land" will become a desolation - happened in 587
> > 2) "these nations" will "serve" the king of Babylon 70 years.
> >
> > The two halves of the sentence - at least in every English Bible that I've 
> > seen - renders them as two separate thoughts, with the 70 years only 
> > attaching to the servitude.
> >
> > UNLESS there is some different way to read it in HEBREW - which is why I am 
> > posting to this mailing list.
> >
> > Here is the NIV of Daniel 9:2-
> > 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****.
> >
> > It looks like it is saying "desolations = 70 years". I am saying "desolations = 50 
> > years" (587/exile - 537/retrurn), but the SERVITUDE of "these nations" = 70 years, as 
> > Jeremiah states.
> >
> > They were not all subjucated at once, for sure, but from the start of the 
> > Babylon's reign up until its reign ended would be 70 years. You could round 
> > it if you like. If it makes you uncomfortable to say its an exact 70 years. 
> > It doesn't matter to me, I am just arguing from the grammar I see in BOTH 
> > places in Jeremiah, that the 70 years applies to Babylon's reign.
> >
> > I guess another way to put it is, the 70 years applies to the years of 
> > Babylon's reign, but the desolations of Jerusalem is a sub-set of that.
> >
> > Here is Daniel 9:2 from the Engish Standard Version:
> >
> > in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number 
> > of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, 
> > **must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem**, namely, seventy 
> > years.
> >
> > Notice that in this version it is not equating the two, only that when the 70 
> > years end, then it would free the way for the desolations to end, regardless 
> > of how long Jerusalem was lying desolate.
> >
> > Here is Daniel 9:2 from the American Standard Version:
> >
> >  in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of the years whereof the word of Jehovah came to Jeremiah the prophet, **for the accomplishing of the desolations of Jerusalem**, even seventy years. 
> >
> > Same thought. And yet you find other versions that do this (Contemporary 
> > English Version):
> >
> > Some years later, Darius the Mede, who was the son of Xerxes, had become king of 
> > Babylonia. And during his first year as king, I found out from studying the writings of 
> > the prophets that the LORD had said to Jeremiah, " Jerusalem will lie in ruins for 
> > seventy years."
> >
> > Now, there is nothing in Daniel 9:2 about Xerxes when checking the interlinear. So this is definitely adding a bit of info and paraphrasing a bit. But it agrees with the NIV to equate Jerusalem's "ruins" with the 70 years. 
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
> > To: b-hebrew-lists.ibiblio.org <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 3:06:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] repost of full question
> >
> > Dirk,
> >  
> >     
> > > Thanks for responding!
> > >  
> > >
> > > The question regarding Daniel 9:2 is closely related to the questions I had 
> > > from Jeremiah because Daniel makes SPECIFIC reference that he got his 
> > > information from Jeremiah. To me, it seems very important to take that into 
> > > consideration when trying to figure out what exactly Daniel meant when he 
> > > wrote chapter 9, verse 2.
> > >  
> > > Which is the main reason why I was also stated the two initial quesitions regarding the grammar of Jeremiah 25:11 and Jeremiah 29:10. I don't know Hebrew, which is why I am posting to this list.
> > >
> > > Here is what I mean in summary:
> > > ALL of the Bibles that I have ever seen - ALL of them render Jeremiah 25:11 (the very first reference to the 70 years prophecy in the Bible) as a two part thought. That is, some of them render it as a compound sentence joined with ", and"; however, most render it with a semicolon or a period. It doesn't matter how you do it, they all mean that there are two separate thoughts expressed. I've gotten ahold of one Hebraist, and he said that there are clearly two thoughts there even in Hebrew - which makes sense because every Bible renders it as two separate thoughts. This means grammatically the seventy years attaches to the "servitude" not the "desolations". 
> > > Most Bibles render Jeremiah 29:10 (except maybe 2 or 3) as "for Babylon". Some of them even render it as possessive - "Babylon's seventy years"
> > > So when I read Jeremiah 25:11 and Jeremiah 29:10, grammatically speaking, 
> > > Jeremiah NEVER equates the 70 years with Jerusalem's desolations.
> > >    
> > >       
> > HH: But he does equate the 70 years with Jerusalem's desolations because 
> > Israel is one of these nations:
> >
> > Jer. 25:17 So I took the cup from the LORD’S hand, and made all the 
> > nations to whom the LORD sent me drink it:
> > Jer. 25:18 Jerusalem and the towns of Judah, its kings and officials, to 
> > make them a desolation and a waste, an object of hissing and of cursing, 
> > as they are today;
> > Jer. 25:19 Pharaoh king of Egypt, his servants, his officials, and all 
> > his people;
> > Jer. 25:20 all the mixed people; all the kings of the land of Uz; all 
> > the kings of the land of the Philistines—Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron, and the 
> > remnant of Ashdod;
> > Jer. 25:21 Edom, Moab, and the Ammonites;
> > Jer. 25:22 all the kings of Tyre, all the kings of Sidon, and the kings 
> > of the coastland across the sea;
> > Jer. 25:23 Dedan, Tema, Buz, and all who have shaven temples;
> > Jer. 25:24 all the kings of Arabia and all the kings of the mixed 
> > peoples that live in the desert;
> > Jer. 25:25 all the kings of Zimri, all the kings of Elam, and all the 
> > kings of Media;
> > Jer. 25:26 all the kings of the north, far and near, one after another, 
> > and all the kingdoms of the world that are on the face of the earth. And 
> > after them the king of Sheshach shall drink.
> >
> >
> >  
> >     
> > >  The emphasis is always on Babylon. In Jeremiah 25 it is seventy years of "servitude" for "these nations" (plural). 
> > >    
> > >       
> > HH: Yes, and Israel is the first nation mentioned in the list of the 
> > nations.
> >
> >
> >  
> >     
> > > In Jeremiah 29:10 it is seventy years "for Babylon" - putting emphasis on Babylon's supremacy. 
> > > Honestly, Daniel may not have even had Jeremiah 25. He was exiled as part of the first wave (Daniel 1:1), 
> > > as you had noted. So he may have only had Jeremiah 29 - which was a letter to the exiles. But even if we 
> > > assume he read what was later to became Jeremiah 25, then IT STILL points to servitude for "these 
> > > nations" and seventy years "for Babylon". Nothing that I have read specifically attaches the 
> > > desolations of Jerusalem with the 70 years, IN JEREMIAH.
> > >  
> > >    
> > >       
> > HH: Israel was one of "these nations."
> >
> >
> >  
> >     
> > >  
> > > Now when I read the NIV translating Daniel as saying the 70 years = desolations of Jerusalem, I am confused because he specifically references Jeremiah.
> > >  
> > >    
> > >       
> > HH: But Jeremiah implies what he says.
> >
> >  
> >     
> > >  
> > > Let's come at it another way. This is another dimension to it that is confusing to me. When Daniel wrote chapter 9, the Jews were still in Jerusalem.
> > >    
> > >       
> > HH: You mean they were still in Babylon.
> >
> >
> >  
> >     
> > >  They had not been released yet - that's the whole reason for his prayer in 
> > > chapter 9. Daniel has just witnessed the end of the Babylonian empire in 
> > > chapter 5. If you go back to Jeremiah chapter 25, read verse 12, and then go 
> > > back to Jeremiah 29 and read the verses after verse 10, there was an order 
> > > that was to be followed - a clear sequence of events.
> > >  
> > > FIRST the 70 years would end 
> > > THEN Babylon would be called to account 
> > > THEN the Jews would return to God - with repentence, fasting, etc. 
> > > THEN the Jews would return to their land
> > > At the time Daniel wrote the prayer recored in chapter 9, the Jews were on 
> > > step #3 - remember Babylon was called to account in ch. 5.
> > >    
> > >       
> > HH: O.K., but prophecies are not necessarily limited to the period to 
> > which they seem to address. Jeremiah 29:11-14 can refer to the return 
> > from Babylon in the sixth century but can also apply to eschatology. The 
> > basic promise is that God would bring them back.
> >
> >
> >  
> >     
> > >  It is interesting that Daniel set out to do exactly what came next on the 
> > > list of event - repent and pray to God. The Jews were on step #3, NOT step 4.
> > >    
> > >       
> > HH: O.K.
> >
> >
> >  
> >     
> > >  That would come a few years later when they got back to their land. Until 
> > > then, it would remain desolated. But look, step #1 was the 70 years ending. 
> > > So the 70 years ended at least 2-3 years before the desolations did. How can 
> > > they be the same period?
> > >  
> > >    
> > >       
> > HH: This seems overly detailed. As I said in my last post, the 70 years 
> > can be a round number.
> >
> >  
> >     
> > >  
> > > See what I mean? 
> > >  
> > >    
> > >       
> >
> > HH: Yes, I see what you mean, but it doesn't seem a problem. God can 
> > give a general figure.
> >
> >
> >  
> >     
> > >  
> > > That is why I am having such a hard time with the NIV. Now if you look at an interlinear for Daniel 9:2, you'll notice the word rendered "fulfill", "complete", "accomplish" is strong number H4390. I've looked it up in a Hebrew dictionary and it definitely means "bring to and end" - "accomplish" - "fulfill". I may not know Hebrew, but words are words because they have meaning. And unless Jeremiah was using some sort of idiom, then the NIV left out any sense of the word rendered "fulfill".
> > >  
> > >    
> > >       
> > HH: If the number of years to be fulfilled for the desolations of 
> > Jerusalem were seventy years, then the desolations would last 70 years. 
> > I don't see the problem.
> >
> >  
> >     
> > >  
> > > When the word is included, it brings the readers attention to the end of the desolations corresponding to the end of the 70 years. Now THAT matches the order set forth in Jeremiah. 
> > >  
> > >    
> > >       
> > HH: Isn't that what NIV is saying: the end of the desolations correspond 
> > to the end of the 70 years?
> >  
> >     
> > > Just a side note. The seventy years could be a round. However, it is not necessary. If you take Jeremiah at face value - as 70 years of servitude for "these nations" to the "king of Babylon", then you can start with the full conquering of the Babylonian empire in 609 BC.... 609-539 = 70 years exactly.  
> > >  
> > >    
> > >       
> > HH: Fine.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Harold Holmyard
> >  
> >     
> > >  
> > >  
> > >    
> > >       
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> >
> >      
> > ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> >  
> >     
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>       
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>