More on the Word Going Forth
Farrell Till errancy@infidels.org
Mon, 31 May 1999 08:43:29 -0700 (00928183409, 2.2.32.19990531154329.008e642c@midwest.net)
At 01:08 AM 8/4/98 GMT, RNM@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>RNM answers:
>
>Dear Farrell Till (from now on "FT") &
>alt.bible.inerrancy folks:
>
>My original posting and reply about the 70-weeks
>prophecy to FT contained SEVERAL points, and not
>just the bit about the meaning of the "issuance of the
>word".
>
>But FT apparently pretends that he can "issue the
>command" that we throw off the rest of the points
>under discussion, and simply stick to this, his
>"chosen" point.
>
>I suspect that this is nothing but a trick to wear down
>the audience and get everybody so fed up that they
>won't notice the BLATANT mistakes he made in his
>"Hitting RNM hard" postings.
>
>If so, FT is in BIG TROUBLE because I won't let him
>get away with murder. If I have re-post the arguments
>ONE HUNDRED TIMES I will do so only to get him to
>respond me. And here I go:
>
TILL
An obvious requirement for one claiming prophecy fulfillment is that he must
prove that the prophecy statement on which he is basing his fulfillment
claim meant exactly he is claiming that it meant. That is why I am firmly
insisting that RNM discharge his first responsibility before we proceed any
further. RNM is claiming that Daniel 9:25 meant that a royal "decree" to
rebuild Jerusalem would be "issued." Therefore, it is incumbent on him to
prove that this is exactly what Daniel 9:25 meant. The statement in
question is this:
>Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word
>went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed
>prince, there shall >be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be
>built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time.
>
It is his responsibility to show beyond doubt that Daniel meant in this
statement a royal decree that Artaxerxes would "issue." If RNM cannot
establish that this is what Daniel meant, then he has not made his case.
What could be more obvious than that?
RNM
>*** POINT ONE. Again, Daniel's 70-week prophecy
>(Chapter 9) mentions that from the "commandment to
>restore and to build Jerusalem" to the Messiah there
>would pass 69 weeks, which is equivalent to 483 years.
>
>FT interprets the original Hebrew as meaning "word",
>not "commandment", and believes that the author of
>Daniel was referring to Jeremiah's prophecy (issued
>around 597 BC, according to FT) that Jerusalem would
>be built.
>
TILL
Yes, and I posted a lengthy discussion of the word "dabar" to show that it
meant "word" in Hebrew, and RNM has not responded to this except to say that
it is "not at all convincing." That's not a rebuttal. It's an evasion. If
it is not at all convincing, he must show us why it isn't convincing. Has
anyone seen him post any analysis of the word "dabar" that would show that
the word as used in Daniel 9:25 had to mean "commandment" or "decree" and
couldn't possibly mean anything else? Furthermore, I did another analysis
of the word "motsa" to show that it meant only "go forth" in Hebrew. Has
anyone seen any reply to this that RNM has posted? Has he shown us an
analysis of the way the word was used in Hebrew to establish that this word
had to mean "issue" in the sense of issuing a decree or a commandment and
that it couldn't mean anything else?
I have seen nothing like this from him. He seems to think that all he has
to do is say, "It ain't so," and then post his claims again. However, until
he shows to us that the original prophecy statement absolutely meant what he
claims, then he has not sustained his position.
RNM
>I disagree with FT's "translation" and forced
>interpretation of the term "word",
TILL
Oh, RNM disagrees? Well, why didn't he say so? If he disagrees, that has
to be sufficient to prove that he is right, doesn't it?
And if my "interpretation" is forced, why doesn't RNM show that it is
forced? I've posted an analysis of examples in the OT of where the words
"motsa" and "dabar" were used to show that my "interpretation" is perfectly
compatible with this analysis of the meanings. Why doesn't RNM respond to
these analyses? Let him show us exactly where I have "forced" an
interpretation.
RNM
> AND IN FACT MOST
>BIBLE VERSIONS DO AS WELL, since they do not use
>the term "word" but COMMANDMENT.
TILL
Most translations use "commandment" in Daniel 9:25? Well, some do, of
course, but let's just look at some of the many that don't. I quoted the
NRSV above, so obviously, it uses "word" and not "commandment." Here are
some other translations:
RSV: Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the WORD to
restore and build Jerusalem....
NAB: Know and understand this: From the utterance of the WORD that Jerusalem
was to be rebuilt....
JBS (Jewish Bible Society): You must know and understand: From the issuance
of the WORD to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until....
NWT: And you should know and have the insight [that] from the going forth of
[the] WORD to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until....
JERUSALEM BIBLE: Know this, then and understand: from the time this MESSAGE
went out: `Return and rebuild Jerusalem....
CONFRATERNITY VERSION: Know and understand this: from the utterance of the
WORD that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt until....
LAMSA'S: Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the WORD
to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to....
YOUNG'S LITERAL: And thou dost know, and dost consider wisely, from the
going forth of the WORD to restore and rebuild Jerusalem till....
HENDRICKSON'S INTERLINEAR: Then know and understand from the issuing of the
WORD to restore and rebuilt Jerusalem to....
HENDRICKSON'S MARGINAL: Know, then, and understand that from the going out
of a WORD to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem to....
The Septuagint translation used "logos," which in Greek meant "word."
Segond's French translation (without the accent marks that are not available
in my e-mail system) says, "Prends donc connaissance et comprends! Depuis la
promulgation de la parole disant de retablir et de reconstruire Jerusalem
jusqu'au...." In English, this means, "Take notice and understand! Since
the promulgation of the WORD saying to reestablish and to reconstruct
Jerusalem until...."
So here are several translations that agree with what I have said. The word
"dabar" meant "word" and not necessarily "commandment" or "decree." Let's
notice too that the JBS, a Jewish translation quoted above, also used "word"
instead of "commandment." Since RNM is claiming that Daniel 9:25 was
referring to a decree or commandment issued by a monarch, it is his
responsibility to prove to us that it had to mean that and ONLY that. If he
can't establish that, then he is claiming the fulfillment of a prophecy
whose meaning cannot be established. So let's now see him show us that we
should think that he knows more about the meaning of "dabar" than the Jewish
Society whose translation I quoted above.
RNM
Therefore, this
>is NOT a "conclusive" or "settled" issue, is it, dear FT
>and alt.bible.errancy friends?
TILL
I would say that it certainly isn't "conclusive " or "settled" that Daniel
9:25 referred to the decree or commandment of a monarch, wouldn't you,
alt.bible.errancy friends?
Until RNM can establish that this prophecy had to mean what he is claiming
that it meant, there is no need to go beyond this point. First things
first! So now let's see his evidence that this had to be what the prophecy
meant. After he has established this, then we can go on to debate (1) which
decree or commandment the prophecy was referring to, and (2) whether the
other aspects of his prophecy-fulfillment claims satisfy the requirements of
Daniel 9:25. By the way, I would suggest that RNM, who has said that he got
his interpretation from a Jehovah's Witness book, take notice of the fact
that the NWT (quoted above) also used "word" to translate "dabar."
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net
----
List Archive: http://www.FindMail.com/list/errancyn/
To Subscribe: e-mail to errancyn-subscribe@MakeList.com
To Unsubscribe: e-mail to errancyn-unsubscribe@MakeList.com
--
Start Your Own Free Mailing List at http://www.MakeList.com !