Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dirk Frulla <fiveacorns AT yahoo.com>]

This may be a post duplication, but I have had very spotty internet access 
today, and the last time I sent this post, it errored, so I am unsure that it 
went through. If it is a duplicate post, please disregard. 
Harold,
 
Thanks for the reply! I am glad that the last round of posts (and some of the 
friction by other members) didn't turn you off to the subject. Believe me, I 
sometimes fall short in choosing the right words to express my thoughts. 
Actually I was meaning to talk about Zechariah as well. I didn't want to 
include it in the previous post because the post was getting somewhat 
lengthy. 
 
When you say, "Again, the prophecy in Jeremiah about babylon's rule", I agree 
with you 100%. That was one of my main points. Jeremiah definitely spoke of 
Bablyon's rule, or in other words seventy years "for Babylon." So on this 
point we agree.  
 
The scriptures in Zechariah are dated the "eighth month in the second year of 
Darius" and the "fourth year of King Darius ...on the fourth day of the ninth 
month, which is Chislev" respectively. 
 
The historical consensus puts the reign of Darius from 522 to 486 BC 
(although I find some references that state 521 as the starting date for his 
reign). That would make the second year of Darius 521/522. By this time, it 
would have been 66/67 years since Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BC. The 
angel could talk about the LORD withholding mercy from Judah for "these 70 
years" because it was very close to 70 years since the temple was destroyed. 
The 70 years mentioned in Zech. are not the same as Jeremiah's 70 years. The 
reason I am comfortable saying this is because the scripture in Zechariah do 
not reference Jeremiah, however, the scriptures in Daniel and 2 Chronicles do 
- which necessitates the need for a connection between Jeremiah, Daniel, and 
2 Chronicles. The same would apply to the fourth year of Darius. By this time 
it would have been 70/71 years since Jerusalem's destruction. So I find no 
contradiction when the verse states the people of the
 land had been fasting for "the past seventy years". 
 
So these scriptures too agree with others and the historical consensus. Which 
is great! 
 
Thanks!
Dirk Frulla
New York


      
____________________________________________________________________________________
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  Thu May  8 00:48:30 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 562CC4C019; Thu,  8 May 2008 00:48:30 -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 web38901.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web38901.mail.mud.yahoo.com
        [209.191.125.107])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C4FA04C00F
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu,  8 May 2008 00:48:27 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: (qmail 30436 invoked by uid 60001); 8 May 2008 04:48:27 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: 
4FNG0R8VM1lis48F4QoLOz9YFRM0ndNanefTuCaxVqGA5HvKGhVQc9u.47Ju.IetTsmqr3CwWis6frN1Po4fU0foGHw_emLwmHl_vNV3ENRV3EqdU0D3spjtrg--
Received: from [74.70.224.221] by web38901.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP;
        Wed, 07 May 2008 21:48:27 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/975.23 YahooMailWebService/0.7.185
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 21:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dirk Frulla <fiveacorns AT yahoo.com>
To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>,
        b-hebrew mailing list <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <457792.29716.qm AT web38901.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] repost of question after reasearch
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, 08 May 2008 04:48:30 -0000

Dear K Randolph ,
 
You wrote: "We thought we gave a sufficient, detailed answer." 
 
Yes, an answer was given. However, I did what I said I would do - research 
the situation a bit more. I was delighted to get some responses offline that 
helped me a great deal with the research. Please re-read my post, as it is no 
longer an issue of just my viewpoint. References were provided which make it 
clear that OTHER HEBREW SPEAKING SCHOLARS feel the same way. Specifically 
hebraists and linguists that spend their life working in the language.
 
You keep coming back to *me* and *my* background. I descerened it was turning 
into an argument based on experience and education, therefore, what was 
provided in the previous post were references from well respected and 
experienced linguists, including a dissection of Daniel 9:2. 
 
I am looking for CONSTRUCTIVE responses, and will consider any constructive 
response with respect. Any response that dodges the content of the post, just 
to attack me, is inappropriate.

> It is, when you look at the meanings of all the words in the verse.

> It does not say that this first year was the fulfillment of the 70 years of
> Jerusalem's desolation (i.e. being without inhabitants), rather it was in
> this year that Daniel came to the insight that Jerusalem would be
> uninhabited 70 years. You need to look at both at what the verse says, and
> what it doesn't say, and it does not say that this first year of Darius was
> the fulfillment of the 70 years for Jerusalem.

> Furthermore, even though Darius was ethnically a Mede, he continued the
> Babylonian system and servitude until he passed from the scene and Cyrus the
> Persian took over.
 
I am not saying that Daniel 9:2 says that the first year of Darius the son of 
Ahasuerus was the fulfillment of the 70 years. I am saying that what seems to 
be clearly stated in Jeremiah is that it was seventy years "for Babylon". It 
doesn't matter that Darius continued the Babylonian system. Babylon's rule 
was over. From that point on it was impossible to serve the king of Babylon 
at all. 
 
I agree with you that in the first year Daniel "came to the insight" or 
"observed" or "descerned". You are stating the the action of "observing" or 
"coming to the insight" is connected to the first year of Darius - and I 
agree. I agree that he descerened this in the first year of Darius. But what 
he decerned in that first year was "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" (NIV). 
The emphasis is on the end of the period.
 
> In which case, they are the reason that one learns and masters the original
> languages in order to understand what the text actually says.
 
 
My point with this was that all of the Bible translations that I have seen 
(26 of them so far), render Jeremiah 25:11 as having the 70 years attached to 
servitude to Babylon, involving "these nations". I don't need to know Hebrew 
in detail to see that the widespread agreement is significant. Even among the 
translations where there is a different sense of meaning in Daniel 9:2 (NIV 
and NASB for example), they all still agree in Jeremiah 25:11 - which 
indicates that the verse in Jeremiah is much less ambigious than the one in 
Daniel. In other words, if you were to gather all of the expert scholars 
together that were involved in translating the 26 Bibles I have on hand, and 
then you were to ask them how Jeremiah 25:11 should be translated, they would 
all agree. Most of them would prefer to separate the two thoughts into two 
separate sentences. It would vary on Daniel 9:2 - as has been demonstrated 
via my previous references.



> The problem for you is not the meaning of "fulfill", but of "desolation".
> Desolation indicates the removing of inhabitants, not just the servitude.
> That 70 year period started when Nebuchadnezzar burned the city, temple and
> palace, leaving the city uninhabited.
 
I guess I can agree with that. If that is the way you define "desolation", 
then it is a problem. HH just responded in another post that indicates you 
can view "desolation" differently (desolation in the sense of the city being 
conquered). If desolation doesn't mean an uninhabited city, then there is 
agreement between Daniel and Jeremiah, and this is fine. But if it means 
desolation in terms of an uninhabited city, then we are obligated to 1) move 
the date of the destruction of Jerusalem back 20 years, 2) move the fall of 
Babylon ahead 20 years, or 3) some combination thereof. In any case, you have 
to find 20 years in the Neo-Babylonian period. Please see the references I 
list below to show why this is basically impossible to do.

> I have neither NIV nor NASB readily available (oh yes, I could check them
> up online, but I have the Hebrew which I trust more than all translations).
 
This is exactly why I decided to post the dissection of Daniel 9:2 from a 
Hebrew linguist. Since the Hebrew is important to you, please re-read this 
dissection and tell me where it is wrong. Then I could, if necessary, go back 
to the very same author with your objections. I have no problem doing this. 
If you are right, then you are right - so tell me what is wrong with it 
grammatically.

> The Hebrew is pretty clear cut, both in Jeremiah, and in all the other
> verses that clearly mention that Jerusalem was to be desolate 70 years. None
> of the verses say that the period was to come to an end at the time that
> Darius the Mede took over. Rather we go to Isaiah and find that Cyrus was to
> bring the people back.
 
None of them say the period would come to an end when Darius the Mede took 
over. (see comments above) However, in Jeremiah it states:
Jeremiah 25:12
"Then it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of 
Babylon ... " (NASB)
"But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon 
..." (NIV)
This clearly states that the seventy years would end, then Babylon would be 
punished. If I say to you, "I will finsh work, then I will post a reply." - 
there is a clear order specified... I will first finish work, and only after 
I finish my work will I post a reply. This verse states that the seventy 
years would end, and then Babylon would be punished. It was impossible for 
Babylon to be punished after it fell. Therefore, I have to conclude the 
seventy years ended prior to the fall of Babylon in accordance with the above 
scripture.
 
> As I said before, I'll say again, forget the historical consensus. Does it
> mention Darius the Mede? How long he reigned? Does it mention how poor the
> surviving records are of the Medo-Persian empire? The consensus is just
> that, a consensus; it may have little to do with what actually happened.
> That is why I look at the linguistic evidence, without trying to fit it into
> the "consensus".

I am mainly interested in the Neo-Babylonian period. The 
administrative/economic/business documents from this time period (from the 
18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, up until the fall of Babylon) *are* extensive - 
we are talking about thousands of documents. They do not date anything 
absolutely (that is, attach a numerical date in our calandar system) to any 
king; however, they serve a great purpose in this discussion. Since there are 
so many documents, each dated with a king and the reigning year of the king, 
the lengths of reigns can be determined. Therefore, if you find a document 
dated the 3rd year of Neriglissar, then you know that Neriglissar had a 3rd 
year. If you find 1000 more documents that are also dated to the 3rd year of 
Neriglissar, you can be *much more* sure he had a 3rd year. In much the same 
way, all the lengths of reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings are established. 
In a previous post, RF mentioned an example regarding Nebuchadnezzar. He
 said:
"and BTW, how do you know that the 3000+ tablets with the name 
"Nebuchadnezzar" refer to Nebuchadnezzar II and not  to 
Nebuchadnezzar III, Nebuchadnezzar IV, Nebuchadnezzar V, or 
Nebuchadnezzar VI?"
Good point. However, for this discussion (showing that Jerusalem was desolate 
for only about 50 years) it is irrelavent. Why? Because the length of 
Nebuchadnezzar II's reign (the one we are interested in) is fixed at 43 years 
by the Bible itself. These documents help by establishing the length of 
reigns of other kings up until the fall of Babylon. These establish that from 
the fall of Jerusalem in the 18th year of Neb. (whatever numerical date you 
would like to put on it) to the fall of Babylon, it is 48 years, so Jerusalem 
would lie desolate about 50 years. The NIV version of Daniel 9:2 says 70. 
There are thousands of these documents - how probable is it that there are 20 
years of documents missing? We're not talking about 1 or 2 years of  
variation, there are 20 missing years. 
There are many more reasons. Carl Olof Jonsson, in his book The Gentile Times 
Reconsidered, goes through many pains to document 14 different, independent 
lines of evidence. In short, some lines of evidence brought out in this book 
that date the period ABSOLUTELY:
1) VAT 4956 - dated to the thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar. The 
astonomical data on this tablet fits the year 568/67 BC and will not be 
duplicated for thousands of years. 
2) B.M. 32312 - dated the sixteenth year of Shamashshumukin. This fixes his 
reigh to 667-648 BC. His successor, Kandalanu's twenty-two year reign to 
647-626 BC, Nabopalassar's 21 year reight to 625-605, and Neb. II's 18th year 
to 587 BC.
3) The Saturn tablet B.M. 76738+76813. Quoting from Josson from page 187:
"The Saturn tablet records a successive series of positions of the planet 
Saturn at its first and last appearances, dated to the first fourteen years 
of Kandalanu. Such a patter of positions, fixed to specific dates in the 
Babylonian lunar calandar, is not repeated again in more than seventeen 
centruies. This text, then, again fixes Kandalanu's twenty-two-year reign to 
647-626 B.C.E, Nabopolassar's twenty-one-year reign to 625-605, and 
Benuchadnezzar's reign to 604-562 B.C.E."
4) Then there are lunar eclipse tablets.
     a) LBAT 1417 - contains four lunar eclipses dated to the sixteenth year 
of Kandalanu and again back up 587.
     b) LBAT 1419 - contains records of eclipses on 18 year intervals, some 
dated to the reign of Neb. Again, it all works out to point to 587.
     c) LBAT 1420 - two dozen eclipses, the ones that aren't damaged are 
dated to Neb's reign, and estabish 587 again.
     d) LBAT 1421- two eclipses dated to the sixth and twelfth month of Neb., 
year 42. These are found in years 563/62. Therefore, Neb's 18th year is 587.
These are documents that match astronomical observations with kings and 
regnal years. Since we know much more about the motion of the planets 
involved and the moon, we can look for these events in the past with great 
accuracy, thereby putting a numerical date on these events. 
This dates the period absolutely, making it difficult to insert even one 
year, much less 20! It is a very convincing argument. 
Further, all of these lines match up with the length of reigns established by 
Berosus and Ptolemy.
Further, the dates match up with synchronizations of other cultures, mainly 
Egypt - which has been estabished independently. 
If there were just one line of evidence pointing toward 587 as the fall of 
Jerusalem and 539 as the fall of Babylon, then that would be one thing. It 
could easly be seen as a possible error if there were only two lines - not as 
probable that there is an error, but still likely. Three lines, you have to 
admit there is a possibility, 4? 5? 6? 7? - 14?! By the time you get to the 
14th  line of independet evidence, most of which are astonomical diaries, 
then you realize why the "consensus" is the "consensus" - because all 
evidence points to 587 as the fall of Jerusalem and 539 as the fall of 
Babylon - and it is a lot of evidence.

> I get the impression that I am just repeating much of what I wrote before.

Again, this is why I reposted with references of Hebrew scholars. Karl, I 
take it that you are a person who holds the Bible in high regard. So am I. 
That is why I would hate to be put on the horns of a dilemma, the Bible on 
one hand and all this evidence on the other. The Bible agrees with the 
evidence, all of it, but it requires that the NIV's version of Daniel 9:2 be 
a paraphase. You can also make it all work if you redefine "desolation", as 
Harold Holmyard stated in his most recent post.
Dirk Frulla
New York


      
____________________________________________________________________________________
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  Thu May  8 00:50:51 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 F40B94C00F; Thu,  8 May 2008 00:50:50 -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 web38902.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web38902.mail.mud.yahoo.com
        [209.191.125.108])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 063B84C010
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu,  8 May 2008 00:50:49 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: (qmail 94542 invoked by uid 60001); 8 May 2008 04:50:49 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: 
jz0p8PcVM1kr9HXti8BCuYs0AhvxxS1BZLhlxhHnkEyAYLHfk8H6JsAiyEJVCO1v6eTNenea5niroN2krhtYJIV8269Iwn7MVX0Ryb2EyP6zOjYibat21PyNEq1jLLtCychNaaFZw9R80ffMg5AmhK_Wvf1ZfpdQ0KqZtVtatET4i8yGm8qohA--
Received: from [74.70.224.221] by web38902.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP;
        Wed, 07 May 2008 21:50:49 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/975.23 YahooMailWebService/0.7.185
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 21:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dirk Frulla <fiveacorns AT yahoo.com>
To: b-hebrew mailing list <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <569055.93544.qm AT web38902.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] repost of question after reasearch
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, 08 May 2008 04:50:51 -0000

It seems that I am having some difficulty with this post. It never seems to 
show up, yet my other posts do. I'll repost one more time. Hopefully it will 
come through this time.
Harold,
 
 
Thanks for the reply! I am glad that the last round of posts (and some of the 
friction by other members) didn't turn you off to the subject. Believe me, I 
sometimes fall short in choosing the right words to express my thoughts. 
Actually I was meaning to talk about Zechariah as well. I didn't want to 
include it in the previous post because the post was getting somewhat 
lengthy. 
 
When you say, "Again, the prophecy in Jeremiah about babylon's rule", I agree 
with you 100%. That was one of my main points. Jeremiah definitely spoke of 
Bablyon's rule, or in other words seventy years "for Babylon." So on this 
point we agree.  
 
The scriptures in Zechariah are dated the "eighth month in the second year of 
Darius" and the "fourth year of King Darius ...on the fourth day of the ninth 
month, which is Chislev" respectively. 
 
The historical consensus puts the reign of Darius from 522 to 486 BC 
(although I find some references that state 521 as the starting date for his 
reign). That would make the second year of Darius 521/522. By this time, it 
would have been 66/67 years since Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BC. The 
angel could talk about the LORD withholding mercy from Judah for "these 70 
years" because it was very close to 70 years since the temple was destroyed. 
The 70 years mentioned in Zech. are not the same as Jeremiah's 70 years. The 
reason I am comfortable saying this is because the scripture in Zechariah do 
not reference Jeremiah, however, the scriptures in Daniel and 2 Chronicles do 
- which necessitates the need for a connection between Jeremiah, Daniel, and 
2 Chronicles. The same would apply to the fourth year of Darius. By this time 
it would have been 70/71 years since Jerusalem's destruction. So I find no 
contradiction when the verse states the people of the
 land had been fasting for "the past seventy years". 
 
So these scriptures too agree with others and the historical consensus. Which 
is great! 
 
Thanks!
Dirk Frulla
New York


      
____________________________________________________________________________________
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  Thu May  8 01:45:07 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 3936B4C010; Thu,  8 May 2008 01:45:07 -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 web38904.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web38904.mail.mud.yahoo.com
        [209.191.125.110])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DAAE04C00F
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu,  8 May 2008 01:45:02 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: (qmail 36555 invoked by uid 60001); 8 May 2008 05:45:02 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: 
U5wvGGQVM1lAQ387yDC3HvEnp0jCLUnFx2rTce2gWU6fYkrwP4IwnNSx4tvP7juaLJsGXANsDF3RKQgk3yRB1Uu4l3bSSlbLVFIlVCtNWoYgfzn5gvF.J9W6FA--
Received: from [74.70.224.221] by web38904.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP;
        Wed, 07 May 2008 22:45:02 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/975.23 YahooMailWebService/0.7.185
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 22:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dirk Frulla <fiveacorns AT yahoo.com>
To: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>,
        "b-hebrew-lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <456501.36335.qm AT web38904.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] repost of question after reasearch
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, 08 May 2008 05:45:07 -0000




Harold,
Thank you for the responses! Very interesting! 

HH: The NASB text still can seem to imply that the desolations of 
Jerusalem will last seventy years. Now, this may not mean that the 
city's inhabitants went into exile for 70 years, although at least some 
of them did.

DF: Good point. Jeremiah 25:18: "Jerusalem and the cities of Judah and its 
kings and its princes, to make them a ruin, a horror, a hissing and a curse, 
as it is this day;" (NASB). This verse, dated in the 4th year of Jehoiakim, 
implies that some of the "ruin" and "curse" was occuring "as it is this day", 
18 years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. I think later in your post 
you make this distinction - that if you think of desolation and ruin in this 
sense, not as complete ruin, but as conquered, then it makes sense. Carl 
Jonsson refers to the Interpreter's Bible (Vol 6. p 485), quoting professor 
Arthur Jeffrey: "chorbah is 'often employed to describe the state of a 
devasted land after the armies of an enemy have passed (Leviticus 26:31, 33; 
Isaiah 49:19; Jeremiah 44:22; Ezekiel 36:34; Malachi 1:3; 1 Maccabees 1:39).'"
If this is true, then one possible interpretation could be 70 years of 
chorbah, dating from the first deportation in the first year of Neb., (605) 
to the time the Jews arrived back home (about 537). 68 years - which is close 
- so you have to postulate a round number. I don't see the round number as a 
problem.
One thing I would like to say, however, is that if this sense of the word is 
true, then it is very near the sense of the word "servitude" that I was using 
- mainly that the Babylonian army had subjugated the land, took a small 
deportation, but left the city intact as a vassal. In this sense we are using 
the word "desolation", but really mean something like vassalage - servitude, 
but not exiled.


HH: Keil believed that the city's desolations lasted 70 years. He writes 
in his commentary on Daniel 9:1-2 (p. 321): "Jeremiah in two separate 
prophecies speaks of the seventy years, and not in the letter of ch. 29, 
but only in ch. 25, has he spoken of the seventy years desolation of the 
land."

On the page earlier (320) he writes: "The reign of Cyrus by himself over 
the kingdom which he founded begins in the year 536, in which year the 
seventy years of the Babylonish exile of Jews were completed."
Keil explains (p. 322) that "the desolation began with 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 
Jehoiachim (606 B.C.)"

HH: Jeremiah's prophecy in chapter 25 is dated to the fourth year of 
Jehoiakim (25:1), which modern synchronisms suggest to NIV was 605 B.C., 
not 606 B.C. as Keil said. But the prophecy to Jeremiah evidently came 
the same year that Keil thought the desolation of Jerusalem began. He 
may have thought it ended 70 years later with the reign of Darius.

HH; I tend to think you have a point here over Keil because the word 
"desolation" is almost uniformly translated by NIV as "ruins," and it 
almost always refers to physical ruins. Keil is trying to give the word 
a partially spiritual rather than physical meaning, and the NIV 
"desolation" and NASB "desolations" in Dan 9:2 could support that. But 
the word really does seem to mean a ruining of the land in the sense of 
ruins being produced.

DF: Again, I can see the reason why that type of 

>  
>  
> On the other hand, there seems to be wide-spread agreement as to what 
> Jeremiah 25:11, 12 says. To date, I still have not found a single Bible 
> that would translate Jeremiah 25:11 as meaning anything other than 
> servitude for many nations. I do have to admit, that Jeremiah 25:11 could 
> read very differently in the Hebrew. Therefore, I contacted various 
> Hebraists and got one response from Ralph W. Klein at the Lutherian School 
> of Theology at Chicago. His Th.D. is from Harvard. He initially interested 
> me because he specifically lists Daniel and the books of Chronicles as 
> areas of expertise, and he is well versed in Hebrew. Please view all his 
> credientials here: 
> http://www.lstc.edu/people/faculty/individual/klein.html. I simply stated 
> my opinion, the current situation, and asked for his input. He responded, 
> "Clearly your reading of this verse is better. In Hebrew the second clause 
> begins with the conjunction and a verb, beginning a new thought." (personal
>  email dated 4/10/2008)
>  


Jer. 25:11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and 
these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

HH: "Wasteland" (or "desolate") is the same Hebrew word as the word in 
Dan 9:2 translated "desolation." In both places it could be translated 
"ruin" (Jer 25:11) or "ruins" (Dan 9:2).

HH: The prophecy in Jeremiah concerns what is about to happen to these 
nations, Israel included. We don't think that the land ceased to be a 
desolation before the end of the rule of Babylon. It is insistence that 
the desolation commence with 587 and end in 536 that makes the time of 
desolation less than 70 years. Keil argues that the desolation began 
with the conquest in 605 B.C., but that may be incorrect.

>  
> Here is one other reference (much thanks to Carl Olof Jonsson for providing 
> this valuable reference):
> Dutch scholar Dr. G. Ch. Aalders in his commentary on Daniël (Commentaar op 
> het Oude Testament) (Kampen: N.V. Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1962), 
> page 200 writes the following:
>  "He does not give a literal quotation from Jeremiah, but it is clear that 
>he alludes to Jer 29:10, where the Lord says: 'when seventy years for 
>Babylon are over, then I will see to you, and my saving word to you will be 
>fulfilled by my bringing you back to this place.' And this is connected with 
>Jer 25:11, 12 where the length of Babylon’s domination is fixed to seventy 
>years, and where God’s judgement on Babylon and the land of the Chaldees at 
>the end of the seventy years is announced. As is seen, nothing is said in 
>the text of Jeremiah about the desolation of Jerusalem, but Daniel has 
>correctly drawn the conclusion that the restoration of his land is 
>indissolubly associated with the fall of Babylon, and that the end of the 
>seventy years of Babylon’s domination at the same time indicates the end of 
>the time of the desolate state of Jerusalem. This also explains why he now, 
>in the first year of the kingship of Darius, in particular is thinking of
>  this: As the power of Babylon has come to an end, could it not now be 
>expected, in agreement with the word of the Lord in Jeremiah, that also the 
>end of the wrath of God, that is referred to in the vision that so strongly 
>had affected Daniel (8:19, 27), soon would become manifest?"
>  
>  
> In summary, I would like to re-establish the question. My original question 
> was regarding Daniel 9:2 and the word rendered "fulfull" ("complete" or 
> "accomplish") in various Bibles. In some Bibles (for example, NIV), the 
> seventy years of Jeremiah is equated with Jerusalem's desolation. In 
> others, the scripture directs the reader's attention toward the 
> relationship between the two periods (70 years "for Babylon" and the 
> desolation of Jerusalem). The relationship being that the two periods share 
> a common terminal point - the seventy years ends, thereby paving the way 
> for the end (fullfill, complete, accomplish) of the desolation.
> Why am I asking this question? There is definitely a period of 70 years - 
> but was it a period of desolation or was it of something else? If we say 
> that it was the desolation of Jerusalem was 70 years, then we have to 
> adjust the "consensus" historical chronology of the period in some way. The 
> consensus historical timeline has Babylon destroyed in 539 BC.


HH: If "ruins" does mean complete destruction, as it seems to, then you 
have a point. Of course, the rule of Babylon over Israel did last 70 
years, Somebody suggested that the temple was not rebuilt and  
consecrated until 516 B.C., and 70 years backward from there would be  
about 586 B.C.

HH: Zechariah clearly shows that the Jews viewed themselves as suffering 
for 70 years:

Zech. 1:12  Then the angel of the LORD said,  “LORD Almighty, how long 
will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and from the towns of Judah, 
which you have been angry with these seventy years?”

Zech. 7:5  “Ask all the people of the land and the priests,  ‘When you 
fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months for the past seventy 
years, was it really for me that you fasted?

HH; Israel clearly understood its punishment by God as lasting 70 years. 
The NIV Study Bible has a note at 7:5:

Since these fasts commemorated events related to the destruction of 
Jerusalem and the temple, the 70 years here are to be reckoned from 586 
B.C. Strictly speaking, 68 years had transpired; 70 is thus a round number.

HH: They have another note at 8:19 explaining how each fast memorialized 
a different event associated with the destruction of Jerusalem by 
Babylon circa 587 B.C.


>  It also has the Jerusalem destroyed in 587 BC. If Jerusalem was 
>re-inhabited a few years later (after the Jews returned home), about 537 BC, 
>then we have a period of 50 years of desolation.


HH; The temple was not consecrated until 516 B.C (Ezra 6:15-18). The NIV 
dates the event as March 12th, almost 70 years after its destruction. 
The call to continue building the temple did not come until 520, even 
though the foundation was laid in  536 B.C., since there was an 
interruption.


>  I understand that some doubt can be cast on business tablets and 
>administrative documents that document the names of the kings, and the 
>succession of the kings. But 20 years worth? As far as I am aware, only RF, 
>in a previous post has claimed 90 "anomolous tablets" - but nothing as to 
>the nature of the anomolies. RF mentioned VAT 4956, and his work regarding 
>this tablet. I have also read articles that answer his
>  objections, re-establishing it's validity. Still, there are other 
>astronomical diaries (other than VAT 4956) that still indicate 587 as the 
>destruction of Jerusalem. 
> >From the previous corrispondence on this list I got the feeling that some 
> >thought I was attempting to disprove the scriptures. However, I am 
> >attempting to do the opposite. I am saying that Jeremiah had it right. He 
> >spoke very plainly, so that the translators of every Bible I have seen 
> >agree on what his words mean. He spoke plainly of 70 years of servitude to 
> >Babylon of many nations - and that's what happened according to all the 
> >historical evidence we have now. The later writers simply made reference 
> >to the end of the 70 years and the relation it had to Jerusalems 
> >desolation. They didn't try to re-interpret his words. I am saying if you 
> >read Jeremiah plainly, he got it right. If you read Daniel plainly, he got 
> >it right. If you read 2 Chronicles, the chronicler got it right. They all 
> >agree with each other and what we know of history - but only if the 70 
> >years is NOT equated with the desolation of Jerusalem as the NIV has 
> >rendered it in Daniel 9:2. 
> I know some of you don't like the idea of saying we know for sure, 
> historically, that 587 was the fall of Jerusalem. OK - I understand this. 
> But as of right now, there is a lot of evidence pointing toward 587/86 as 
> Jerusalem's fall, and it doesn't seem logical to wait for other material 
> that may or may not be discovered at some unknown point in the future to 
> move the date around; much less move it by 20 years.
> I lay the question back out on the table - now that it is shown the matter 
> isn't clear cut. In light of this, and especially the comments on Hebrew 
> grammar above, would it not be better to translate Daniel 9:2 more like the 
> NASB, rather than what the NIV shows for this verse? 
>  


HH: Maybe it would be more accurate. My own feeling is that the Hebrew 
suggests 70 years of devastation for Jerusalem in Dan 9:2 and seventy 
years of sabbath rest for the land in 2 Chr 36:21. Here is the NRSV for 
both verses:

Dan. 9:2 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 the 
prophet Jeremiah, must be fulfilled for the devastation of Jerusalem, 
namely, seventy years.

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.

Here is the Holman Christian Standard Bible, another pretty literal 
translation:

Dan. 9:2 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.

21 This fulfilled the word of the LORD through Jeremiah and the land 
enjoyed its Sabbath rest all the days of the desolation until 70 years 
were fulfilled.

HH: In 2 Chronicles 36:21 it is not just the 70 years that are being 
completed but the sabbaths of the land, apparently seventy years worth 
of sabbaths. As I said, these 70 years of punishment became the 
springboard for the prophecy of 490 years for Israel that Daniel gave (7 
x 70s years): Dan 9:24:


24 Seventy weeks are decreed

    about your people and your holy city—

    to bring the rebellion to an end,

    to put a stop to sin,

    to wipe away injustice,

    to bring in everlasting righteousness, (B)

    to seal up vision and prophecy,

    and to anoint the most holy place.

HH: Just as the prophecy of 70 years was about Israel, so the prophecy 
of 490 years was about Israel. Yes, Babylon would rule over them, but it 
was 70 years of rule over Israel. I see the problem you are having. The 
Babylonian rule began in 605 B.C. and ended in 536 B.C. That seems to be 
the end of the 70 years according to Jeremiah:

Jer. 25:12  “But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the 
king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their 
guilt,” declares the LORD,  “and will make it desolate forever.

HH: So the 70 years of Jeremiah may be different than the 70 years of 
punishment in Zechariah, and you may be right about the desolations not 
lasting as long as the 70 years of Jeremiah. The ruins of Jerusalem did 
not begin until 587 B.C., and its ruins could have ended with the return 
of the exiles in 536 B.C. However, the divine punishment was not 
completely over until perhaps the reconsecration of the temple in 516 
B.C. So the ruins in some sense may have lasted longer than the endpoint 
of Babylonian rule.

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
>From fiveacorns AT yahoo.com  Thu May  8 02:56:52 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 32F7A4C010; Thu,  8 May 2008 02:56:52 -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 web38908.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web38908.mail.mud.yahoo.com
        [209.191.125.114])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BD0BC4C011
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu,  8 May 2008 02:56:47 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: (qmail 70352 invoked by uid 60001); 8 May 2008 06:56:47 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: 
VwS7MlgVM1kYdw1SA.a5tM1aqwb6RJH6dC7pS3BUEssFhgTxfzYRWkNFeIiuFtWTq4qSeJOMGytE6xPfz_D3l4NLggizkqPqCNKWjQzbs2s0KySBSLzMQw6VIQ--
Received: from [74.70.224.221] by web38908.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP;
        Wed, 07 May 2008 23:56:47 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/975.23 YahooMailWebService/0.7.185
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 23:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dirk Frulla <fiveacorns AT yahoo.com>
To: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>,
        "b-hebrew-lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <390613.70303.qm AT web38908.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] repost of question after reasearch
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, 08 May 2008 06:56:52 -0000


 
 
Harold,
 
Sorry for another duplicate. It is 3:00 AM where I am now, and I hit the 
wrong button - sending my response too early. My appologies.
 

Thank you for the responses! Very interesting! 

HH: The NASB text still can seem to imply that the desolations of 
Jerusalem will last seventy years. Now, this may not mean that the 
city's inhabitants went into exile for 70 years, although at least some 
of them did.

DF: Good point. Jeremiah 25:18: "Jerusalem and the cities of Judah and its 
kings and its princes, to make them a ruin, a horror, a hissing and a curse, 
as it is this day;" (NASB). This verse, dated in the 4th year of Jehoiakim, 
implies that some of the "ruin" and "curse" was occuring "as it is this day", 
18 years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. I think later in your post 
you make this distinction - that if you think of desolation and ruin in this 
sense, not as complete ruin, but as conquered, then it makes sense. Carl 
Jonsson refers to the Interpreter's Bible (Vol 6. p 485), quoting professor 
Arthur Jeffrey: "chorbah is 'often employed to describe the state of a 
devasted land after the armies of an enemy have passed (Leviticus 26:31, 33; 
Isaiah 49:19; Jeremiah 44:22; Ezekiel 36:34; Malachi 1:3; 1 Maccabees 1:39).'"

If this is true, then one possible interpretation could be 70 years of 
chorbah, dating from the first deportation in the first year of Neb., (605) 
to the time the Jews arrived back home (about 537). 68 years - which is close 
- so you have to postulate a round number. I don't see the round number as a 
problem.

One thing I would like to say, however, is that if this sense of the word is 
true, then it is very near the sense of the word "servitude" that I was using 
- mainly that the Babylonian army had subjugated the land, took a small 
deportation, but left the city intact as a vassal. In this sense we are using 
the word "desolation", but really mean something like vassalage - servitude, 
but not exiled.


HH: Keil believed that the city's desolations lasted 70 years. He writes 
in his commentary on Daniel 9:1-2 (p. 321): "Jeremiah in two separate 
prophecies speaks of the seventy years, and not in the letter of ch. 29, 
but only in ch. 25, has he spoken of the seventy years desolation of the 
land."

On the page earlier (320) he writes: "The reign of Cyrus by himself over 
the kingdom which he founded begins in the year 536, in which year the 
seventy years of the Babylonish exile of Jews were completed."
Keil explains (p. 322) that "the desolation began with 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 
Jehoiachim (606 B.C.)"

HH: Jeremiah's prophecy in chapter 25 is dated to the fourth year of 
Jehoiakim (25:1), which modern synchronisms suggest to NIV was 605 B.C., 
not 606 B.C. as Keil said. But the prophecy to Jeremiah evidently came 
the same year that Keil thought the desolation of Jerusalem began. He 
may have thought it ended 70 years later with the reign of Darius.

HH; I tend to think you have a point here over Keil because the word 
"desolation" is almost uniformly translated by NIV as "ruins," and it 
almost always refers to physical ruins. Keil is trying to give the word 
a partially spiritual rather than physical meaning, and the NIV 
"desolation" and NASB "desolations" in Dan 9:2 could support that. But 
the word really does seem to mean a ruining of the land in the sense of 
ruins being produced.


DF: I see what you mean about how he defines "desolations" with a somewhat 
different meaning. As I said before, if you postulate a different meaning for 
the word (although it sounds like you don't think this type of meaning is 
possible), then it can work it out - thing agree. That is, if you say 
"desolation" or "ruin" has a different shade of meaning, one that will allow 
you start the desolation of Jerusalem much earlier, then you can make it fit. 
However, this causes a bit of a problem with the order of events specified in 
Jeremiah 25:12 and 29:10 (see more comments below on this).


HH: Jer. 25:11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and 
these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

HH: "Wasteland" (or "desolate") is the same Hebrew word as the word in 
Dan 9:2 translated "desolation." In both places it could be translated 
"ruin" (Jer 25:11) or "ruins" (Dan 9:2).

HH: The prophecy in Jeremiah concerns what is about to happen to these 
nations, Israel included. We don't think that the land ceased to be a 
desolation before the end of the rule of Babylon. It is insistence that 
the desolation commence with 587 and end in 536 that makes the time of 
desolation less than 70 years. Keil argues that the desolation began 
with the conquest in 605 B.C., but that may be incorrect.
 
DF: Exactly. I agree with this. If we insist that the desolation started with 
Jerusalem's fall (587) and ended on their return (537/36), then we have 50/51 
years. Which is 20 years off. I am OK with round numbers when it gets close, 
but it is difficult to round 50 up to 70. So if Keil takes the position that 
the "desolation" has a different meaning, then I can see it almost works. 
Although, it is not necessary. Here is why I think this:
 
In an earlier post, I put forth a series of events. These events are derived 
from Jeremiah 25:12 and Jeremiah 29:10
 
Jeremiah 25:12 states: "Then it will be when seventy years are completed I 
will punish the king of Babylon and that nation,' declares the LORD, 'for 
their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans; and I will make it an 
everlasting desolation." (NASB)
 
This seems to indicate an order. The seventy years would be completed and 
THEN the king of Babylon and that nation would be punished. This puts the end 
of the 70 years of servitude (not necessary desolation, but servitude to 
Babylon) sometime before the actual fall. God had "numbered the kingdom and 
put and end to it" (Daniel 5:26) the night it Babylon was taken . All that is 
clearly implied is that the seventy years spoken of in verse 11 would end, 
and then Babylon would be punished. 
 
Jeremiah 29:10 states: "For thus says the LORD, 'When seventy years have been 
completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to 
bring you back to this place." (NASB)
 
This is another example of the same order. The context of Jeremiah 25 and 29 
are roughly the same: the 70 years "for Babylon." In both places they imply 
an order. First the 70 years would end, then Babylon would be punished. The 
second verse states the 70 years would end, and then the LORD would "fulfill 
My good word to you, to bring you back to this place."
 
If the 70 years ended when Babylon was punished, then this would put the end 
of Jeremiah's 70 years at 539 BC. It would be impossible to "punish" the 
nation of Babylon anytime after 539 BC. The end of the desolation is a 
different event that would occur a bit later. 
 
Because of this order, translating Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:21 stating 
that the end of the 70 years would fulfill the desolations, or put an end to 
them ,or pave the way for them to end, seems to make sense.

 



HH: Zechariah clearly shows that the Jews viewed themselves as suffering 
for 70 years:

Zech. 1:12  Then the angel of the LORD said,  “LORD Almighty, how long 
will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and from the towns of Judah, 
which you have been angry with these seventy years?”

Zech. 7:5  “Ask all the people of the land and the priests,  ‘When you 
fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months for the past seventy 
years, was it really for me that you fasted?
 
 
 
DF: I'm not sure if you received my last post to these two verses. I keep 
sending it, but it never gets sent back to me through the mailing list. I 
hope I'm not double/triple posting. In any case, I'll reproduce the comments 
below.
The scriptures in Zechariah are dated the "eighth month in the second year of 
Darius" and the "fourth year of King Darius ...on the fourth day of the ninth 
month, which is Chislev" respectively. 
 
The historical consensus puts the reign of Darius from 522 to 486 BC 
(although I find some references that state 521 as the starting date for his 
reign). That would make the second year of Darius 522/521. By this time, it 
would have been 66/67 years since Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BC. The 
angel could talk about the LORD withholding mercy from Judah for "these 70 
years" because it was very close to 70 years since the temple was destroyed. 
The 70 years mentioned in Zech. are not the same as Jeremiah's 70 years. The 
reason I am comfortable saying this is because the scripture in Zechariah do 
not reference Jeremiah, however, the scriptures in Daniel and 2 Chronicles do 
- which necessitates the need for a connection between Jeremiah, Daniel, and 
2 Chronicles. The same would apply to the fourth year of Darius. By this time 
it would have been 70/71 years since Jerusalem's destruction. So I find no 
contradiction when the verse states the people of the
 land had been fasting for "the past seventy years". 
 
So these scriptures too agree with others and the historical consensus. Which 
is great! 
 



HH: Just as the prophecy of 70 years was about Israel, so the prophecy 
of 490 years was about Israel. Yes, Babylon would rule over them, but it 
was 70 years of rule over Israel. I see the problem you are having. The 
Babylonian rule began in 605 B.C. and ended in 536 B.C. That seems to be 
the end of the 70 years according to Jeremiah:

Jer. 25:12  “But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the 
king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their 
guilt,” declares the LORD,  “and will make it desolate forever.

HH: So the 70 years of Jeremiah may be different than the 70 years of 
punishment in Zechariah, and you may be right about the desolations not 
lasting as long as the 70 years of Jeremiah. The ruins of Jerusalem did 
not begin until 587 B.C., and its ruins could have ended with the return 
of the exiles in 536 B.C. However, the divine punishment was not 
completely over until perhaps the reconsecration of the temple in 516 
B.C. So the ruins in some sense may have lasted longer than the endpoint 
of Babylonian rule.


DF: Now that I read it again, I think you said exactly what I said above. You 
hit the nail on the head so-to-speak. The 70 years of Jeremiah seem to end 
when Babylon was punished, or in 539 B.C. Since Jeremiah also spoke of 
servitude of "many nations" to the king of Babylon, we can even go back 
farther than 605 - since Babylon was out conquering "all these nations round 
about." (Jer 25:9) before Neb. became king. 
Thanks!
Dirk Frulla
New York


      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>From him AT vadimcherny.org  Thu May  8 05:59:57 2008
Return-Path: <him AT vadimcherny.org>
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 1917D4C011; Thu,  8 May 2008 05:59:57 -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-front2.dca2.superb.net (mail-front2c.dca2.superb.net
        [66.148.95.65])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 538334C00F
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu,  8 May 2008 05:59:53 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: (qmail 99463 invoked from network); 8 May 2008 09:50:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (him AT vadimcherny.org@212.15.155.48)
        by 66.148.95.65 with ESMTPA; 8 May 2008 09:50:54 -0000
Message-ID: <4822CEFF.5080208 AT vadimcherny.org>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 12:59:27 +0300
From: Vadim Cherny <him AT vadimcherny.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [b-hebrew] dot in shin sin
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, 08 May 2008 09:59:57 -0000

Dear all,

As some of you might remember from the previous discussions on this
list, I advocate the theory that dagesh (both kal and hazak) is a stop.
Specifically, dagesh hazak is a post-tonic geminative stop, and dagesh
kal is interconsonantal stop meant to force syllabification. Both
dageshes are designed to prevent jamming: hazak prevents jamming of the
post-tonic vowel (mitlAb'sh - mitlA.bbesh) and kal prevents jamming of
first consonant in the cluster (ni-zcar - ni-'car, but niz.car).

With that in mind, I'd venture an explanation for shin-sin difference
which I haven't seen before. Dot in shin-sin functions like soft-hard
signs in Russian. A {she} syllable, for example, would be pronounced
with the soft sign like sh[ee].  The point is, shin and sin is the same
letter, the difference being purely environmental.
Sameh, then, is [s] while sin is softened [sh]. It is possible that in
some words with harsh meaning sameh evolved into sin due to hard
pronunciation (e.g., savah with sameh - svah, bars, with sin).

I'd like to welcome your opinions.

Vadim Cherny