Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com>]

--- On Fri, 1/30/09, Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no> wrote:

> In the book of Daniel we find one saying that clearly is at
> odds with the universally accepted history, and that is chapter 9,
> verse 2. In this verse we learn that in the beginning of the Persian
> kingdom Daniel read about the 70 years when Jerusalem would be
> desolate. The same information is found in 2 Chronicles 36:21 
> where it is said that Jerusalem was a desolate waste for a full 
> 70 years. Using the rules of lexical semantics, grammar, and syntax 
> I am not able to see any other meaning in the two passages than that 
> Jerusalem was a desolate waste for a full 70 years. Yet, the history 
> leaves only 49 of 50 years for Jerusalem's desolate condition (and 
> some say Jerusalem never was desolate). Is Daniel and the 
> Chronicler wrong?

It depends on how one is using "desolate." The Temple was destroyed 586 and 
was not rebuilt until 516 in the 6th year of Darius I. That is 70 years. 
Jerusalem is overflowing with people and buildings today, but many here will 
tell you they consider it a desolate ruin because the Temple has not been 
rebuilt. Are you saying Daniel and the Chronicler understood desolate to mean 
strictly the period from the destruction of Jerusalem to the 1st year of 
Cyrus regardless of the condition of the Temple?

Tory Thorpe