Masoretic Text vs. Greek Septuagint

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey RAM, (Richard),

Is there any reason the text cannot mean 70 periods of seven years, for a total of 490 years?

There is, as provided by Montgomery, Newton, Young, etc. Byt if there were a fulfillment, it might clarify the correct interpretation. So as it currently stands, Mauro comes the closest, but is still incorrect.

As far as I can tell, they gave reasons why it might not. They did not show that it could not. There is too much ambiguity in the text to justify such conclusive statements.

Maybe we could evaluate an end-times fulfillment?!?

With Best Regards,
BibleScribe

What do you mean?

[BibleScribe]

The plural is employed until vs 27 where the one week [the 70th] is mentioned. Thus the plural seems similar to our putting an 's' on the end of a word. 70 week(s); 7 week(s) 62 week(s) 1 week(no s)

I would propose that the issue is not whether the words are employed as either plural or singular, but whether the text is either the concise Feminine or the inconcise Masculine.

Collin Sandler
"The word used for "weeks" is actually TWO words in the original text: shibah and shabuwa."

In his book "Daniel, Key to Prophetic Revelation," John Walvoord cites Edward Young's "The Prophecy Of Daniel", which noted that Daniel used: "the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels 'it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word sevens is employed in an unusual sense.'" This word is found only FIVE times in the O.T., all in the 9th chapter of Daniel, twice in verse 24, twice in verse 25, and once in verse 26. Interestingly, Daniel's verse 27 uses "shabuwa" (Strong's 7620)."

However, if you examine a J.P. Green interlinear, you should find FIVE instances of the Hebrew word "shibiym" ("Strong's" 7657), and TWO instance of "shabuwa". According to "Strong's", "shibiym" is described as a "multiple [plurl] of 7651", which is the word "sheba" in feminine gender and "shibah" in masculine gender. "

If I understand the contexts correctly, it appears that the first sixty-nine "shibah" are one chronology, and the seventieth "shabuwa" is a different chronology. It seems fairly obvious that the seventieth "shabuwa" is a seven-year period, and that the sixty-nine "shibah" are NOT. Nearly all commentators interpret all seventy periods of time as "shabuwa", which totals to 490 years. Literal scripture does NOT support that interpretation."

This individuals chronology is correct, but not for the reason cited. As provided previously the distinction between shibiym and shabuwa is not durations, but whether plural or not plural.So all we know is that the text is NOT the concise Feminine, but the inconcise Masculine. As such the Feminine = 490, but the Masculine ≠ 490. (Please note that your cited source has acknowledged his mis-statement.) But certainly Young, Keil, & Kliefoth readily acknowledge the "unusual" use of the Masculine text:

'...as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word 'sevens' is employed in an unusual sense.’'

'...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keil and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.'

John Walvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 217

Furthermore Young proceeded to observe that this Masculine text is only found in the 9th Chapter of Daniel, and the Feminine is used in the 10th Chapter and all other citations in Scripture.



However, none of your responses refute the Masculine text as cited by Young, Keil, & Kliefoth (as documented per Walvoord), and your "1,000s" are conspicuously absent. So for now all I can suggest is that the experts are unable to unravel the mystery of this Chapter. Does this suggest there is no answer? God forbid. There IS an answer, and both Scripture and history confirm the true fulfillment.



With Best Regards,
BibleScribe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So for now, all I can suggest is that any perspective from the Septuagint is unavailable. However, I will provide that the Masoretic text "weeks"/"week" as shibiym/shabuwa, (plural/singular respectively), which according to Edward Young is NOT written in the usual concise Feminine text, but in the unusual inconcise Masculine text.

Thus although most interpretations present a value of ~ seventy sevens = 490 years, -- the inconcise Masculine text actually presents: NOT 490 years. (Please note that the concept is analogous to ~slang~ where someone is described a "hot" or something is described as "cool". These terms reflect a concept which is independent of a thermal gradient.

Hey there BibleScribe,

I've been trying to figure out what you mean by "concise feminine" vs. "inconcise masculine" but I have not found any good explanation in your posts. Have I missed it? Could you please state exactly what you mean and quote the source?

Thanks,

Richard

ETA: It looks like you may have answered my question in your previous post. ...

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Collin Sandler
"The word used for "weeks" is actually TWO words in the original text: shibah and shabuwa."

In his book "Daniel, Key to Prophetic Revelation," John Walvoord cites Edward Young's "The Prophecy Of Daniel", which noted that Daniel used: "the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels 'it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word sevens is employed in an unusual sense.'" This word is found only FIVE times in the O.T., all in the 9th chapter of Daniel, twice in verse 24, twice in verse 25, and once in verse 26. Interestingly, Daniel's verse 27 uses "shabuwa" (Strong's 7620)."

However, if you examine a J.P. Green interlinear, you should find FIVE instances of the Hebrew word "shibiym" ("Strong's" 7657), and TWO instance of "shabuwa". According to "Strong's", "shibiym" is described as a "multiple [plurl] of 7651", which is the word "sheba" in feminine gender and "shibah" in masculine gender. "

If I understand the contexts correctly, it appears that the first sixty-nine "shibah" are one chronology, and the seventieth "shabuwa" is a different chronology. It seems fairly obvious that the seventieth "shabuwa" is a seven-year period, and that the sixty-nine "shibah" are NOT. Nearly all commentators interpret all seventy periods of time as "shabuwa", which totals to 490 years. Literal scripture does NOT support that interpretation."

This individuals chronology is correct, but not for the reason cited. As provided previously the distinction between shibiym and shabuwa is not durations, but whether plural or not plural.So all we know is that the text is NOT the concise Feminine, but the inconcise Masculine. As such the Feminine = 490, but the Masculine ≠ 490. (Please note that your cited source has acknowledged his mis-statement.) But certainly Young, Keil, & Kliefoth readily acknowledge the "unusual" use of the Masculine text:

'...as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word 'sevens' is employed in an unusual sense.’'

'...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keil and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.'

John Walvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 217

Furthermore Young proceeded to observe that this Masculine text is only found in the 9th Chapter of Daniel, and the Feminine is used in the 10th Chapter and all other citations in Scripture.

Where did you get the terms "concise feminine" and "inconcise masculine"? Those terms are not used by any Bible scholars that I've ever read. Indeed, a Google search turns up nothing but this thread and others that you have written on other forums! Did you invent this terminology?

[BibleScribe]

Hey RAM, (Richard),

As far as I can tell, they gave reasons why it might not. They did not show that it could not. There is too much ambiguity in the text to justify such conclusive statements.

If an expert does not know the answer, they can only make vague statements. If they do know the answer, they are concise. -- As cited these can readily identify the myriad of problems, but cannot achieve an answer.

What do you mean?

If the best and brightest (including Newton) can't resolve an ancient fulfillment, then can we look to the end-times (~1948) as specified by the angel?



With Best Regards,
BibleScribe

[BibleScribe]

Where did you get the terms "concise feminine" and "inconcise masculine"? Those terms are not used by any Bible scholars that I've ever read. Indeed, a Google search turns up nothing but this thread and others that you have written on other forums! Did you invent this terminology?

'...as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word 'sevens' is employed in an unusual sense.’'

'...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keil and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.'

John Walvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 217

The closest analogy I can conceive is a "cool" car, or "hot" chick. Neither term reflects an depressed or elevated thermal gradient, and only an English novice could make that mistake. And so too the Feminine text is concise, but the Masculine text is inconcise.


With Best Regards,
BibleScribe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If an expert does not know the answer, they can only make vague statements. If they do know the answer, they are concise. -- As cited these can readily identify the myriad of problems, but cannot achieve an answer.

There are degrees of certainty. That's why one should always begin with the main and plain things that can be established with certainty and then try to understand the ambiguous things in light of what is know. Case in point: We have a mountain of mutually confirming witnesses that agree with a first century fulfillment. No one can deny that Christ predicted the destruction of the Temple and that it was fulfilled in 70 AD. And this coheres with the reason Revelation was not sealed (i.e. because the events were soon to happen, just like the text says). And so on and so forth. The facts that can be known with any certainty point to a first century fulfillment.

If the best and brightest (including Newton) can't resolve an ancient fulfillment, then can we look to the end-times (~1948) as specified by the angel?

The angel did not specify that date.

Concerning the time of the end, when the book would be unsealed, the angel said "when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." The power of the Jews was scattered in 70 AD. Note how this perfectly coheres with the Olivet Discourse.

Richard

PS: Before you go praising Newton, you might want to recall that he was anti-Trinitarian. Do you deny the Trinity?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

'...as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word 'sevens' is employed in an unusual sense.’'

'...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keil and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.'

John Walvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 217

The closest analogy I can conceive is a "cool" car, or "hot" chick. Neither term reflects an depressed or elevated thermal gradient, and only an English novice could make that mistake. And so too the Feminine text is concise, but the Masculine text is inconcise.


With Best Regards,
BibleScribe

So you invented the terminology "inconcise Masculine."

And I already answered that quote. It does not necessarily imply the conclusion you are hoping for. Sure, it is a possibility, but it is not a certainty. So why do you keep pressing it as if it were a certainty?

[BibleScribe]

Hey RAM, (Richard),

Sure, it is a possibility, but it is not a certainty. So why do you keep pressing it as if it were a certainty?

If an expert does not know the answer, they can only make vague statements. If they do know the answer, they are concise.


The answer is simple now that we're in the end-times. And if I know that answer, I can be concise!


With Best Regards,
BibleScribe

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

I would propose that the issue is not whether the words are employed as either plural or singular, but whether the text is either the concise Feminine or the inconcise Masculine.

But the plural, singular elements are aslo part of the 'puzzle' and are shown simply to refer to a plural number of 'week(S) in vs 24-26 and a singular 70th week in vs 27.

This individuals chronology is correct, but not for the reason cited.

AS noted when I posted it; I dont' declare to affirm his opinion. I do not affirm a gap between the 69th and 70th week.

As provided previously the distinction between shibiym and shabuwa is not durations, but whether plural or not plural.So all we know is that the text is NOT the concise Feminine, but the inconcise Masculine. As such the Feminine = 490, but the Masculine ≠ 490. But certainly Young, Keil, & Kliefoth readily acknowledge the "unusual" use of the Masculine text:

Since this is the ONLY place where the this example can be cited, where do you find the authority to make a statement of a 'slang' inference or a 'indefinite time'??

as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word 'sevens' is employed in an unusual sense.’'

Agreed, and this is where Richard and I agree that this is the ONLY inferrence that can be affirmed.

Furthermore Young proceeded to observe that this Masculine text is only found in the 9th Chapter of Daniel, and the Feminine is used in the 10th Chapter and all other citations in Scripture.

However, none of your responses refute the Masculine text as cited by Young, Keil, & Kliefoth (as documented per Walvoord), and your "1,000s" are conspicuously absent. So for now all I can suggest is that the experts are unable to unravel the mystery of this Chapter.

It's evident in the several commentaries and theologians that note the 7's as not "WEEKS" of days, but weeks of years. That was posted before.

Does this suggest there is no answer? God forbid. There IS an answer, and both Scripture and history confirm the true fulfillment.

And from this, you jump to Dan 9:2 about which rebuttals you havn't attempted to discuss. ????? Dan 9:2 is NOT talking about the 70 7's of Dan 9:24. That's been presented to you several times. Dan 9:2 is talking about coming to the end of the 70 yrs that they were in during the babylonian captivity. Jeremiah prophesied the babylonian captivity to last 70 yrs. In the last year of that captivity, Daniel realized (by the books and the numbers) that he and the people were in the last year(s) and had not made their confession as of yet.

How can you ignore this????

You seem to be intent to worship Israel and not God who fulfilled this prophecy. John even affirms in 1 John 3 that the confession that Jesus is the Christ [the annointed, or the Messiah] is evidence of being children of God. But you say that these references to the annointed dont' refer to Jesus, but to Israel???

There is, as provided by Montgomery, Newton, Young, etc. Byt if there were a fulfillment, it might clarify the correct interpretation.

Or perhaps Montgomery, Newton, Walvoord are wrong. Keil, etc never proposed a solution, only that the language opted for something other than normal weeks of 7 days. Newton didn't want his findings published because he was insecure about them.

For at least the 3rd time; Christ declared himself as the Messiah to the Woman at the well. This had to end the 69th week and began the 70th week.

You again repeat:

'...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keil and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.'

And I agree. It does not NECESSARILY mean yr-weeks but DOES impliy something other than normal day-weeks; the length of which are determined on some other grounds. Young is not saying that the 7's are NOT year-weeks; but that it cannot be determined that they ARE yr-weeks by the text alone. The indefinite aspect DOES imply that they are NOT the normal DAY-WEEKS. This is what Richard is also saying. It is still allowed that they are Year-Weeks if it can be determined on other grounds.

Jesus (and the apostles) are the other grounds which DO affirm that they are YEAR-WEEKS. And the history of Jesus coming and the attatched desolation of Jerusalem fulfills the description and the time-frame of the prophecy.

Thanks for the discussion. It's interesting to see how much impact the end-times madness and bless Israel to be blessed mentality has had on folks ability to be objective in their evaluations.