Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dirk Frulla <fiveacorns AT yahoo.com>]

Rolf, thanks for responding! Please see my comments below. I block them in 
with **DF** and **END DF**

Thanks!


----- Original Message ----
From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 5:25:02 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] repost of full question

Dear Dirk,

I see your desire to find agreement between the 
chronology of the Bible and ancient chronology. 
And your problem is that Dan 9:2 says something 
that you find is at odds with the accepted 
Neo-Babylonian chronology.  The Hebrew words of 
Dan 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:21 say explicitly 
that Jerusalem was a desolate waste for 70 years, 
and I cannot see how they could be translated in 
a different way if we use the normal Hebrew 
lexicon, grammar, and syntax.
 
** DF **
 
 
Your are saying that 2 Chronicles 36:21 and Daniel 9:2 clearly, unambigiously 
(explicitly) state that Jerusalem would lie in ruins for 70 years. I disagree 
that they state this "explicitly" or "clearly". Take for example 2 Chronicles 
36:21 quoted here from the NIV:
 
"The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it 
rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of 
the LORD spoken by Jeremiah."
 
The "desolation" in the scripture above is connected with the sabbath rests 
of the land. Notice, though, that this scripture too references Jeremiah and 
claims agreement with Jeremiah. However, Jeremiah didn't mention the sabbath 
rests of the land. The word "sabbath" occurs seven times in Jeremiah and none 
of them apply to the sabbath rests of the land. The "sabbath rests" prophecy 
came from Leviticus. All that is clearly stated above is that the land rested 
while it was desolate. But the 70 years is not connected to that sabbath 
resting, nor to the desolation. The desolation and sabbath resting ARE 
connected together by the scripture above - but not to the 70 years. The 
scripture just says that the land would "rest" and be desolate UNTIL the 70 
years were fulfilled/comleted/accomplished/ended.
 
Jerusalem would lie desolate, and all the years lying desolate it paid its 
sabbath rests - until 70 years were "fulfulled" - This is the **SAME** word 
used in Daniel 9:2 that draws your attention to END of the period, not the 
period as a whole.
 
Here is the word defined again, strong number: 4390
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.
 
Jerusalem finished paying off its sabbaths when the 70 years period 
completed, but that doesn't mean that Jerusalem started paying off its 
sabbaths when the 70 years began. That cannot be shown anywhere from 
scripture - especially not from Jeremiah, since he didn't mention sabbath 
rests. In fact, the prophecy in Jeremiah applies to different nations. He 
states that "these nations" would "serve" the king of Babylon 70 years 
(Jeremiah 25:11) - so it applies to the servitude of many nations. However, 
the prophecy in Leviticus applies only to Judah and the paying of the sabbath 
rests of the land. 
 
However, the two prophecies are **related** in the sense that they would both 
END at the same time. When the 70 years ended, it was then possible for the 
desolation and sabbath rests of the land to end. This is the same issue I am 
having with Daniel 9:2. In order to create an equation of 70 years = 
desolation, you have to ignore the word rendered "fulfill" (strong number 
H4390) which IS there in the Hebrew. The meaning, defined above, pulls the 
readers attention to the end of the 70 years relating to the end of the 
desolation and sabbath rests - but not equating the two periods.
 

** END DF **

But perhaps you should approach the problem from 
a different angle, by looking at the *basis* of 
ancient history and ancient chronology. If you 
make an in-depth study, you will find that the 
situation is not as firm and certain as it 
appears on the surface. As a matter of fact, 
ancient history and ancient chronology cannot be 
proven, so we should always be somewhat skeptical 
at the results that are presented. Any study of 
ancient artifacts are based on the current 
paradigm of model (and such paradigms cannot be 
proven) and different axioms or assumptions. To a 
great extent the interpretations of such 
artifacts are based on circular reasoning. For 
example, when "dated" cuneiform tablets are 
found, they are interpreted in the light of the 
traditional chronology, and therefore they are 
viewed as confirming this chronology. I put 
"dated" in quotation marks, because, on the basis 
of my own collation of cuneiform business 
tablets, I assess that as much as 25% of the 
tablets are broken (often at the beginning or end 
where the dates are), and the date of the broken 
tablets are of course interpreted in a way as to 
conform with the traditional chronology. 
 
**DF **
 
Sometime, somewhere we will have to bump the events of the Bible up against a 
secular historical record. We can't get to any numerical dates without 
consulting history somewhere along the line. We can't determine the 
destruction date for Jerusalem from the Bible alone nor can we even determine 
the destruction of Babylon from the Bible alone. 

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you 
suggesting that we shouldn't be concerned with dates at all? After you 
previous post, I read up on some of your work, and I realize that you have an 
alternate chronology you are attempting to prove. So far as I can tell, your 
position is:
1) Babylon was destroyed in 539 BC
2) The Jews returned to Jerusalem in 537 BC (thereby ending the 70 years of 
desolation)
3) And the desolation of Jerusalem lasted 70 literal, complete years - no 
rounding
4) Therefore Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC. - which is 20 years off the 
accepted date.

Because your chronology is 20 years off the accepted date, I can understand 
your desire to discredit the current evidence toward 587. But I am worried 
that in your attempt to discredit the historical documents that establish 587 
BC as the destruction of Jerusalem, you also discredit the documents that 
would establish 539 BC as the fall of Babylon - which your chronology needs 
as a basis for getting back to 607.

You referenced the business/administrative documents and mentioned that 25% 
(approx) are damaged so that they can't be dated. This is fine with me... 
then exclude them from the evidence pool. It is my understand that there are 
TENS OF THOUSANDS - some figures I have read state HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of 
documents from the time period in question. Let's take an average - 50,000. 
If 25% of them are damaged so as they can't be dated, then that leaves 37,500 
left that are dateable. That is about 50 documents per month for the entire 
Neo-Babylonian era. And I know there are, in reality, more than 37,500. The 
point is that we have enough documents to establish the lengths of reigns of 
the Neo-Babylonian kings to such a small detail that we can identify kings 
that reigned for only a few months.

We don't even have to "fit" them in our current chronology. These business 
documents simply establish who reigned, and for how long. That's it. It is 
fairly independent of any sort of chronology. The **application** of those 
lengths of reigns in interesting, though. Here is the accepted lengths of 
reigns:

Nebuchadnezzar 43 years
Evil-Merodach 2 years
Neriglissar 4 years
Labashi-Marduk 9 months
Nabonidus 17 years (ending when Babylon fell to Persians)

The Bible says that Jerusalem was destroyed in the 18th year of 
Nebuchadnezzar. If you accept 539 BC as the date for Babylon's fall, then the 
18th year of Neb. = 587.

The only way that you can get around this is that you postulate a missing 
king in there. We have all these documents (not counting the damaged ones) 
that give us the lengths of reigns of these kings. Yet, there isn't even one 
that mentions a new king? Have you been able to find a document that mentions 
a new king?

 
** END DF **
 

Anomalous tablets should not exist,  but  such 
tablets do exist! I have a list of about 90 
business tablets dated in the reigns of the 
Neo-Babylonian kings which, taken at face value, 
show that the Neo-Babylonian Empire lasted longer 
than the traditional chronology says.


** DF **

I disagree. Anomalous tablets SHOULD exist - depending on what you mean by 
"anomalous". This isn't like a mathematical theorum, in which you can find 
one example that contradicts the theroum, thereby proving it is not true. We 
are talking about business documents here, TENS OF THOUSANDS of them, written 
by people. You don't think there would be a mistake here and there?

Let me put it another way. I create computer programs that run the day-to-day 
operations of law firms, insurance companies, telephone companies, schools, 
and various other business types. These companies process thousands of 
transactions daily. I have seen major insurance companies issue claims checks 
dated in month 13! I have seen payments posted the 31st of Feb. If I were a 
historian looking back on this culture some 2000-3000 years in the future, 
and came across various examples of checks dated in month 13 and some dating 
the 31st of February, should I conclude that there really wasn't 12 months 
for this culture, rather there were 13? Or that there really was a 31st of 
February? 

The point: mistakes happen when we are talking about documents written by 
people. You say you found 90 "anomalous" tablets. My question to you, what is 
the nature of those anomolies? Because 90 out of 37,500 (to use our example 
figure) is less than 1/2 of 1% error. I see more errors in modern day 
business transactions. 

Now, if you have some tablets that show a new king, well ... then I would 
suggest that you publish those quickly before somebody beats you to it. 


** END DF **


We should keep in mind that the lengths of the 
reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings were fixed a 
long time before a single cuneiform tablet was 
found. So the newly found tablets were 
interpreted in the light of a chronology that 
already existed. The tablet used to fix the reign 
of Nebuchadnezzar II and the year 587 as the 
destruction of Jerusalem is the astronomical 
Diary VAT 4956. A  detailed critical  study of 
this tablet was published in German in 1915, and 
the conclusions of this study has just been 
repeated over and over again during the 93 years 
since then - but no new critical detailed studies 
have been published. This is a typical phenomenon 
in the humanistic sciences. Some authority 
presents a hypothesis, a theory, or a conclusion, 
and this is just repeated by later scientists - 
and often presented as a fact - without any new 
critical study of the case.  In 1988 a 
transliteration and translation of VAT 4956 into 
English was published (but not a  detailed 
critical study). The reasons for fixing year 37 
of Nebuchadnezzar II to 568/67 are positions of 
the moon and planets in relation to stars and 
star constellations found on the tablet. Several 
of the moon positions are described in specific 
numbers with a required fit of 1 to 4 degrees. 
However, there is a one day discrepancy between 
the beginning of each month in the studies of 
1915 and 1988. Because the  the moon moves about 
13 degrees eastward against the background of the 
stars each day, if  the moon positions fitted 
exactly in the 1915 study, they cannot fit 
exactly in the 1988 study vice verca.

I have published a book dealing with ancient 
chronology, and it includes 87 pages with a 
philological, linguistic, and astronomical study 
of VAT 4956 including many pictures of the tablet 
and parts of it. My conclusion is that we cannot 
rely on this tablet for an absolute chronology 
because there are too many questions, 
uncertainties, and problems in connection with 
this tablet. I also list the 90 "anomalous" 
tablets, and please remember that if we can show 
just one extra year in the Neo-Babylonian Empire, 
the supposed witness of VAT 4956 of 568/67 as 
being Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year is valueless.

** DF **

Are you aware of this paper, refuting your book: 
http://cfmin.wordpress.com/category/607-bce/


** END DF **

One interesting aside: The Neo-Assyrian 
chronology hinges on *a single assumption*, 
namely, that solar eclipse reported in the 
eponymate of Bur-Sagale was the one occurring on 
15 June 763 B.C.E. Yet there are at least eight 
other solar eclipses that may fit the description.

Again, ancient history and chronology cannot be 
proven, so why should we dogmatically rely on the 
present consensus?

** DF **

What do you mean by "rely"? I am seeking to have all things agree (Bible and 
history). I do not believe that my theology is in danger if 587 is not the 
date for Jerusalem's fall. 

With much respect, from what I have read, I think yours is in danger if you 
can't move the date for Jerusalem's fall to 607. If you really, really, 
really mean this statement: "why should we dogmatically rely on the present 
consensus?", then we have to imagine that you will not be able to produce the 
evidence needed to prove your chronology 100% either (after all, this can't 
be done 100% right?) - so would you be willing to go on the record as stating 
that should not dogmatically rely on 607 as the fall of Jerusalem either?

** END DF ** 


Thanks!
Dirk Frulla


      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>From fiveacorns AT yahoo.com  Mon Apr 21 11:25:04 2008
Return-Path: <fiveacorns AT yahoo.com>
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 EBB7E4C01E; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:25:03 -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=HTML_MESSAGE
        autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from web38906.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web38906.mail.mud.yahoo.com
        [209.191.125.112])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 22DB64C018
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:25:03 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: (qmail 61369 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Apr 2008 15:25:02 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: 
Ec0ilI0VM1li3q9jpkhTLbg83Zg_vJ9H0mplpkbcgWgt5joCFdQkQ6UIKIapXjp6ZIH22NcZjo4CmdvOBKxkInhs0tnmr3v43GsTWe4yjB2SVe8z4OBFlrI6UA--
Received: from [72.10.198.252] by web38906.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP;
        Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:25:02 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/902.40 YahooMailWebService/0.7.185
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dirk Frulla <fiveacorns AT yahoo.com>
To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>,
        b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <420492.60750.qm AT web38906.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
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: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:25:04 -0000

K. Randolph.

Thanks! See my comments below blocked out as **DF** - **END DF**



"Then there are different interpretations of Biblical data. I accept one
interpretation: professional etiquette says that while I may mention which
interpretation I accept, in fact it is preferable that I do so so others may
understand other statements I make, I may not push it as the only correct
one while on this discussion group."

To sum up: while there is a scholarly consensus, we must recognize that it
is based on a certain amount of guesswork, educated guesses, but fuzzy
enough that one cannot use that scholarly consensus dogmatically.


**DF**
 
True. Sharing different viewpoints is always helpful. It is equally helpful 
to show where there might be logical holes. For example, if one were to 
accept 539 BC as the fall of Babylon, and yet accept the lengths of reigns 
currently established by the scholarly consensus, the 18th year of Neb. fall 
on 587 BC.

>From what I can tell Rolf does accept these things, and the scholarly 
>consenus  regarding the lengths of reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings is 
>derived from thousands upon thousands of business and administrative 
>documents. 

Also, my purpose in starting this post-chain is that if one were to accept 
587 as the fall of Jerusalem, and yet read Daniel 9:2 as equating the 70 
years with the desolation of Jerusalem, there is a contradiction. Also, it 
seems that Jeremiah specified a clear order of events, indicating that the 70 
years (of whatever it may be) would end, and THEN Babylon would be called to 
account. This means the 70 years ended with the fall of Babylon - or at least 
sometime prior to that. So if we have Daniel and Ezra saying the desolation = 
70 years, we create some contradictions (since the Jews didn't return for 
another 1-2 years) - OR we have to postulate that Jeremiah was a false 
prophet. 

We can't have Jeremiah being a true prophet of God, specifying an order of 
events, saying that the 70 years applies to servitude of nations and then 
Daniel coming into the picture later and essientially re-write what Jeremiah 
wrote UNLESS we postulate that Jeremiah was a false prophet - which really 
doesn't make sense because then Daniel is insisting the learned of the 70 
years from Jeremiah.

Yet, if you read Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronilces 36:21, there is word there that 
brings the reader's attention to the end of the period, not the period as a 
whole. This is why I signed up for this mailing list - because the issue at 
hand DOES indeed deal with what is written in Hebrew in these passages.
 
*END DF**

Thanks!
Dirk Frulla


      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>From bjwvmw AT com-pair.net  Mon Apr 21 11:50:01 2008
Return-Path: <bjwvmw AT com-pair.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 8F8924C01B; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:50:01 -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 mail.com-pair.net (mail.com-pair.net [208.74.104.248])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589C04C015
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:49:56 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from oemcomputer (66-81-53-4.nocal.dialup.o1.com [66.81.53.4]) by
        mail.com-pair.net
        (Rockliffe SMTPRA 8.0.4) with ESMTP id 
<B0008186267 AT mail.com-pair.net>; 
        Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:49:54 -0700
Message-ID: <00cf01c8a3c7$7988ffa0$04355142@oemcomputer>
From: "Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>
To: "Harold Holmyard" <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>,
        "b-hebrew-lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <660083.18100.qm AT web38901.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
        <4809F524.8030002 AT earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:50:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
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: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:50:01 -0000

Dear Dirk, Harold, et al,

I would probably add that since the Second Temple was completed until ca. 517,
then the completion of the desolation of Jerusalem would be finished at that
time.

Here is an example where the physical desolation began in 605 BC and ended in
535 BC, but the spiritual desolation, represented by the destruction of the
Temple did not begin until 587-6 BC and ended 70 years later in 517-6 BC upon
its rebuilding. This is one of the reasons why Haggai and Zechariah prophesied
in the first place.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harold Holmyard" <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
To: "b-hebrew-lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] repost of full question


> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1388 - Release Date: 04/20/08 3:01
PM


For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of 
Com-Pair Services!