Olivet Discourse revisited

[Douggg]

Exactly! it would be ridiculous argument that doesn’t follow any grammatical rules.

transgressors is plural in English. The king of Babylon is singular in English.

It would be incredibly ridiculous of me to claim the antecedent of “their” in Daniel 8:23 is a noun, that doesn’t follow the grammatical rules of the language, AND is in a completely different chapter where the vision took place years before.

When the noun (transgressors) is plural and their is plural, within the sentence - it makes no sense to try and "invent" a different antecedent - because one does not exist in the previous verse.

Four kingdoms in verse 22 is plural, versus verse 23, which it is kingdom singular in verse 23.

 

[Douggg]

Now you are getting into red herring territory. We are not discussing who the “transgressors” are. We were discussing what is the antecedent of “their” kingdom in Daniel 8:23.

Not just "their" but kingdom "singular" in verse 23, while in verse 22 it is four kingdoms "plural". So it is talking about a completely different kingdom in verse 23.

Futhermore, the kingdom in verse 23 which the little horn appears in Gabriel's explanation is time of the end, which the little horn person of verse 23 stands up against the Prince of princes in verse 25.

Who is the Prince of princes ? Did Antiochus stand up against Jesus ? Antiochus died 164 years before Jesus was born to Mary. So it is impossible for Antiochus to be the little horn.

 

[Douggg]

You wrongly put forth “transgressors”, which as we know, can’t be the antecedent because it does not match the gender of “their”. The only antecedent near in the passage that can work with “their” kingdom, is “four kings”.

So you think the transgressors in verse 23 can only be women ?

There are not four kings found in verse 22. It is four kingdoms. Those four kingdoms, each had multiple kings over time.

The four kingdoms of verse 22 is not the one kingdom of verse 23.
__________________________________________________

The little horn in Daniel 7 comes up among 10 kings of one kingdom. His look more stout that his fellows. Matching his look in Daniel 8:23 of fierce countenance.

 

[RandyPNW]

Hi Randy,

Dan. 1 - 7 we read of God revealing Himself to the kings -

1. God`s Wisdom through Daniel.
2. God`s Time Frame for the Gentile Rulership.
3. God`s Power through keeping the 3 men from being burnt in the fiery furnace.
4. God`s Judgment upon the proud king.
5. God`s Mercy when the king repented.
6. God`s authority over man`s laws, keeping Daniel from the lions.
7. God`s time for the completion of the Gentile`s ruling.

Dan. 8 - 12 we read of God revealing the events for Israel before they rule the world.

Now God did not create a nation (Israel) work for centuries with them and then discard them. God has purposes for Israel as well.

Hi Marylin. I did talk with my brother on Sunday about the Chaldean/Hebrew parts of Daniel. He said he's heard of this approach but for himself tends to look at the language part to be a product of who his audience was at the time, rather than who the prophecy is directed to. He made no dogmatic claims about this, though. I suppose it's up to you as to how to explain this.

He said there are other books that contain Aramaic, as well. I don't know how you would explain all of them.

Some of them appear to be matters of official proclamations. But Jesus used it on various occasions, which may suggest a more common, intimate note towards people? I think Aramaic may have been more the "people's language" at that time?

 

[RandyPNW]

Randy, the king of fierce countenance of Daniel 8:23 stands up against the Prince of princes in Daniel 8:25. It is talking about the beast of Revelation leading the kings of the earth to make war against Jesus.

I personally see Dan 8 as being about the ancient kings of Persia and Greece, about Alexander the Great and about a future Syrian king, Antiochus 4, who would resemble what we see as the Antichrist. But I don't really see it as having anything at all to do with the endtimes except as perhaps a foreshadowing of the same.

You have to decide for yourself. But generally, scholars recognize the context as being ancient, and not modern prophetic fulfillment. I'm not, here, referring to liberal scholars, but to respected, trustworthy conservative scholars.

 

[Marilyn C]

Hi Marylin. I did talk with my brother on Sunday about the Chaldean/Hebrew parts of Daniel. He said he's heard of this approach but for himself tends to look at the language part to be a product of who his audience was at the time, rather than who the prophecy is directed to. He made no dogmatic claims about this, though. I suppose it's up to you as to how to explain this.

He said there are other books that contain Aramaic, as well. I don't know how you would explain all of them.

Some of them appear to be matters of official proclamations. But Jesus used it on various occasions, which may suggest a more common, intimate note towards people? I think Aramaic may have been more the "people's language" at that time?

Thanks Randy,

Good to look into it and yes it would be for the audience at the time in some places. Then we have the meaning of some parts closed (Dan. 8: 27, 12: 4) and not understood till our time.

 

[claninja]

transgressors is plural in English. The king of Babylon is singular in English.


When the noun (transgressors) is plural and their is plural, within the sentence - it makes no sense to try and "invent" a different antecedent - because one does not exist in the previous verse.

Four kingdoms in verse 22 is plural, versus verse 23, which it is kingdom singular in verse 23.

Not just "their" but kingdom "singular" in verse 23, while in verse 22 it is four kingdoms "plural". So it is talking about a completely different kingdom in verse 23.

Futhermore, the kingdom in verse 23 which the little horn appears in Gabriel's explanation is time of the end, which the little horn person of verse 23 stands up against the Prince of princes in verse 25.

Who is the Prince of princes ? Did Antiochus stand up against Jesus ? Antiochus died 164 years before Jesus was born to Mary. So it is impossible for Antiochus to be the little horn.

So you think the transgressors in verse 23 can only be women ?

There are not four kings found in verse 22. It is four kingdoms. Those four kingdoms, each had multiple kings over time.

The four kingdoms of verse 22 is not the one kingdom of verse 23.
__________________________________________________

The little horn in Daniel 7 comes up among 10 kings of one kingdom. His look more stout that his fellows. Matching his look in Daniel 8:23 of fierce countenance.

By your responses it’s getting clearer that you don’t understand how Greek and Hebrew work.

1.) It was pretty clear when you stated “so you think transgressors are only woman?”. I did have a little chuckle at that. I suggest looking into the what grammatical gender means:

“In linguistics, grammatical gender system is a specific form of noun class system, where nouns are assigned with gender categories that are often not related to their real-world qualities”
(Grammatical gender - Wikipedia)

Just because a noun is classed as masculine doesn’t mean it’s biologically a male nor if a noun is classified as female, does it mean it’s biologically a female. It’s simply a way of classifying nouns in certain languages. English does not do this, so this may be where your confusion is. You seem to be incorrectly conflating English rules with Greek and Hebrew.

in the LXX, “their” in regards to “their kingdom” (Daniel 8:23), is a masculine, plural, genitive pronoun. That means its antecedent must be a masculine and plural noun. “Transgressors” is not masculine, but is feminine, so it CANNOT be the antecedent based on the rules of grammar. That does not mean the transgressors are women, it simply means the noun is classified as feminine. By this very rule of grammar, we can rule out transgressors as being the antecedent.

2.) yes, kingdom in vs 23 is singular. But In greek, plurals and singulars and gender don’t need to match their genitive counterpart. While “their (Genitive)” is plural and masculine, “kingdom (genitive)” is singular and feminine. A genitive noun is used as an expression of possession. So the LXX literally says: the kingdom (singular/feminine) of them (plural/masculine).

3.) So, who is “them” who possesses the kingdom? Well, we have to look for the antecedent, or noun that matches the gender, which is masculine, and number, which is plural. The closest and most logical antecedent that matches in gender and number is “kings” as found in vs 22. Kings, in Vs 22, is masculine and plural, thus matching, “them” which is also masculine and plural. “Kingdom”, in vs 23 being singular and feminine is irrelevant, as it is genitive and NOT a pronoun. We are not looking for the antecedent of kingdom.

4.) kingdoms being plural in vs 22, but singular in vs 23, doesn’t really matter. Notice in the book of Maccabees, the kingdom is “divided”. This would be consistent with vs 22’s plural kingdoms. However, the book of Maccabees still calls this division the kingdom (singular) of the Greeks, which is consistent with vs 23.

Literally, Alexander’s kingdom was divided amongst 4 generals (vs 22). In the latter on of their kingdom, AE4 rose up (vs 23).


1 maccabees 1:5-10
After this he fell sick and perceived that he was dying. 6 So he summoned his most honored officers, who had been brought up with him from youth, and divided his kingdom among them while he was still alive. 7 And after Alexander had reigned twelve years, he died.

8 Then his officers began to rule, each in his own place. 9 They all put on crowns after his death, and so did their descendants after them for many years, and they caused many evils on the earth 10 From them came forth a sinful root, Antiochus Epiphanes, son of King Antiochus; he had been a hostage in Rome. He began to reign in the one hundred thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks.

 

[Douggg]

By your responses it’s getting clearer that you don’t understand how Greek and Hebrew work.

It is irrelevant, because of the translators' knowledge of Greek and Hebrew have put everything into English in the kjv.

And there is the affirmation that the little horn in Daniel 7 is the same little horn in Daniel 8, by the description of his demeanor - i.e. more stout than his fellows in Daniel 7:20, and of fierce countenance in Daniel 8:23.

And affirmation the little horn is time of the end because the little horn person will eventually stand up against the Prince of princes - Jesus, in Daniel 8:25. So it is impossible for the king of fierce countenance in Daniel 8:23 to be Antiochus.

Futhermore, not only does the little horn come up among ten kings of the fourth kingdom in Daniel 7:20, in Revelation 17:17 those same ten kings hand their kingdom over to him to be dictator of it, once he has become the beast.

 

[claninja]

It is irrelevant, because of the translators' knowledge of Greek and Hebrew have put everything into English in the kjv.

The original Greek and Hebrew is irrelevant? No, douggg, that’s just a terrible argument in order make the English say whatever you personally want it to say, thus justifying your very own personal eschatological belief system.

The English translation cannot be understood beyond the scope of the original languages in Hebrew and Greek. And this is how we know your interpretation of the scriptures is wrong in regards to Daniel 8:23. The only antecedent that fits is “kings” In vs 22. There is no other antecedent. The English must follow the original languages.

And there is the affirmation that the little horn in Daniel 7 is the same little horn in Daniel 8, by the description of his demeanor - i.e. more stout than his fellows in Daniel 7:20, and of fierce countenance in Daniel 8:23.

And affirmation the little horn is time of the end because the little horn person will eventually stand up against the Prince of princes - Jesus, in Daniel 8:25. So it is impossible for the king of fierce countenance in Daniel 8:23 to be Antiochus.

Futhermore, not only does the little horn come up among ten kings of the fourth kingdom in Daniel 7:20, in Revelation 17:17 those same ten kings hand their kingdom over to him to be dictator of it, once he has become the beast.

Just more red herring territory.

 

[Douggg]

The original Greek and Hebrew is irrelevant? No, douggg, that’s just a terrible argument in order make the English say whatever you personally want it to say, thus justifying your very own personal eschatological belief system.

The English translation cannot be understood beyond the scope of the original languages in Hebrew and Greek. And this is how we know your interpretation of the scriptures is wrong in regards to Daniel 8:23. The only antecedent that fits is “kings” In vs 22. There is no other antecedent. The English must follow the original languages.




Just more red herring territory.

claninja, the translators of the kjv have already accomplished what you are trying to reinvent.

In your so-called rules of biblical hebrew grammar - you are using English based words, such as feminine, masculine, nouns, pronouns. You are not even using hebrew words. Not only that, compared to English, biblical Hebrew has a very small vocabulary of 7000 words compared to 173, 000 in English.

What I wrote is not red herring territory, but relevant biblical text that disproves that Antiochus was the little horn person, and that it is impossible for him to have been.

 

[claninja]

claninja, the translators of the kjv have already accomplished what you are trying to reinvent.

In your so-called rules of biblical hebrew grammar - you are using English based words, such as feminine, masculine, nouns, pronouns. You are not even using hebrew words. Not only that, compared to English, biblical Hebrew has a very small vocabulary of 7000 words compared to 173, 000 in English.

What I wrote is not red herring territory, but relevant biblical text that disproves that Antiochus was the little horn person, and that it is impossible for him to have been.

Douggg, it’s clear with your response of “are the transgressors only women?” that you have no idea how Greek and Hebrew languages work, nor do you understand what grammatical gender is.

These are not my own personals rules for language. I did not not invent or “reinvent” this. These are the rules you learn when you take courses and research Greek and hebrew.

I have no idea what you mean by not even using Hebrew words? Of course I’m not going to transliterate each word, if that’s what you mean?

I have no idea where your argument is going with word count….another red herring, as that’s completely unrelated.

The point is, Douggg, we don’t agree what the antecedent is in the English translation. You argue “transgressors”, which has no general consensus. I believe it is “kings” which is also the general consensus by serious scholarship. SO, we can look at the Greek and Hebrew to determine the antecedent because of the rules of grammatical gender state that the antecedent to a pronoun must match gender and number. Transgress does NOT match gender or number of “their”, so it can’t be the antecedent. “Kings” does match gender and number, so it can be the antecedent.

Your argument is built on a misunderstanding of how language works, and therefore, fails.

 

[Douggg]

I have no idea what you mean by not even using Hebrew words?

I am saying you are outlining ancient biblical Hebrew language rules with English words such as masculine and feminine - words that did not exist, that anyone of Daniel's era would not have known - in their language colleges (I am being facetious).

I don't think you are even going to find an ancient Hebrew language rule book actually wriitten in that era. You would be better off reading the text of the kjv and putting the pieces together that make sense rationally speaking. Something so far, you have been ignoring.

 

[claninja]

I am saying you are outlining ancient biblical Hebrew language rules with English words such as masculine and feminine - words that did not exist, that anyone of Daniel's era would not have known - in their language colleges (I am being facetious).

How else, besides English, would you like me to describe grammatical rules of Hebrew, if describing them in English is not acceptable to you?

Of course the English words masculine and feminine did not exist 3,000 years ago…what are you even talking about?


In Hebrew:

“Every noun is either masculine or feminine. An obvious masculine noun is אישׁ (iysh - man) and an obvious feminine noun would be אשׁה (iyshah - woman). As can be seen in this example the suffix ה (ah) can be added to a masculine noun to make it feminine. Another example is the word מלך (melek - king), a masculine noun whereas מלכה (mal'khah - queen) is the feminine form. However, some nouns cannot be identified as masculine or feminine by any suffix, or lack of it. The word עץ (eyts - tree) is a masculine while רוּח (ru'ahh - wind) is feminine. The gender of a noun is important as will become evident in later lessons.” (Learn Biblical Hebrew: Lesson 14 | AHRC)

In Greek:

“In the Greek language, there are three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. Each noun in Greek has a specific gender and—unlike in English—these genders don’t only apply exclusively to nouns referring to people, but also to nouns that refer to things or animals. Therefore, gender should be viewed as a grammatical attribute of a noun and not necessarily as the sex of a person, animal, or thing.” (Your Guide to Gender in Greek Grammar)

I don't think you are even going to find an ancient Hebrew language rule book actually wriitten in that era. You would be better off reading the text of the kjv and putting the pieces together that make sense rationally speaking. Something so far, you have been ignoring.

Sure Douggg……
However, when we find ourselves in a disagreement, It’s important to understand how Greek and Hebrew work.

We disagree on the antecedent of “their” kingdom. Since English is not a gendered language, we should “typically” look for the closest preceding noun that matches the number (plural or singular). This would be kings, found in vs 22.

BUT, YOU argue it’s transgressors, and disagree that it is kings from vs 22. Since, English is not a gendered language, how can we ever determine who is choosing the right antecedent? Well….By looking at a gendered language like Greek (LXX). Since transgressors is feminine, but “their” is masculine, we can rule out YOUR argument that it’s transgressors, as the gender does not match.

You, imposing your subjective eschatological belief into the passage does NOT change the objective fact that transgressors is not the intended antecedent of the author.

 

[Douggg]

We disagree on the antecedent of “their” kingdom. Since English is not a gendered language, we should “typically” look for the closest preceding noun that matches the number (plural or singular). This would be kings, found in vs 22.

But none of those kings (that you are imaging are in the text of verse 22) stood up against the Prince of princes - Jesus. Which in Daniel 8:25, the king of fierce countenance of verse 23 does. It is not a matter of antecedents.

This would be kings, found in vs 22.

There is only one king "inferred to" in verse 22, the king of Grecia - i.e. Alexander. No other kings.

22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

The verse is just saying after Alexander, the kingdom of Greece will be split up into four lesser kingdoms. There are no kings in verse 22 to be the antecedent of "their" in verse 23.

 

[DavidPT]

There are no kings in verse 22 to be the antecedent of "their" in verse 23.

In the LXX version there apparently is.

8:22 And [as for] the one that was broken, in whose place there stood up four horns, four kings shall arise out of his nation, but not in their [own] strength.
23 And at the latter time of their kingdom, when their sins are coming to the full, there shall arise a king bold in countenance, and understanding riddles.

Daniel 8 - Septuagint LXX Brenton Restored Names King James Version KJV Strong's Concordance Online Parallel Bible Study

Brenton's Septuagint & Holy Name King James Version with Strong's numbers in Hebrew. Read online Bible study, search parallel bibles, cross reference verses, compare translations & post comments in bible commentaries at qBible.com.

qbible.com

But then look at the way the LXX renders verse 25 vs how the KJV renders it.

LXX
8:25 And the yoke of his chain shall prosper: [there is] craft in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by craft shall destroy many, and he shall stand up for the destruction of many, and shall crush them as eggs in his hand.

KJV
Daniel 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.


What in the LXX version is supposed to be meaning this--- he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes?

 

[Douggg]

In the LXX version there apparently is.

8:22 And [as for] the one that was broken, in whose place there stood up four horns, four kings shall arise out of his nation, but not in their [own] strength.
23 And at the latter time of their kingdom, when their sins are coming to the full, there shall arise a king bold in countenance, and understanding riddles.

Daniel 8 - Septuagint LXX Brenton Restored Names King James Version KJV Strong's Concordance Online Parallel Bible Study

Brenton's Septuagint & Holy Name King James Version with Strong's numbers in Hebrew. Read online Bible study, search parallel bibles, cross reference verses, compare translations & post comments in bible commentaries at qBible.com.

qbible.com

But then look at the way the LXX renders verse 25 vs how the KJV renders it.

LXX
8:25 And the yoke of his chain shall prosper: [there is] craft in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by craft shall destroy many, and he shall stand up for the destruction of many, and shall crush them as eggs in his hand.

KJV
Daniel 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.


What in the LXX version is supposed to be meaning this--- he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes?

I think the kjv is more viable

 

[claninja]

But none of those kings (that you are imaging are in the text of verse 22) stood up against the Prince of princes - Jesus. Which in Daniel 8:25, the king of fierce countenance of verse 23 does. It is not a matter of antecedents.

Again, that would be putting your subjective interpretation onto the text, while ignoring the objective fact that the antecedent to “their” kingdom is not transgressors

There is only one king "inferred to" in verse 22, the king of Grecia - i.e. Alexander. No other kings.

22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

The verse is just saying after Alexander, the kingdom of Greece will be split up into four lesser kingdoms. There are no kings in verse 22 to be the antecedent of "their" in verse 23.

In the Hebrew, “their kingdom” is a verbal participle, where “their” is feminine plural in its pronoun aspect. The closest antecedent that matches is kingdoms, which is plural and feminine. IOW Four kingdoms would come from Alexander and in the latter end of their kingdom, would rise an insolent king. This is the general consensus among scholars of the interpretation.

The Septuagint makes this even clearer. “Their” is a masculine plural pronoun. Its closest antecedent is kings, which is also plural and masculine. IOW four kings would come from Alexander’a kingdom and in the latter part of their kingdom, an insolent king would rise.

I think the kjv is more viable

1.) The KJV is a translation of the hebrew, so understanding the antecedents should follow the Hebrew.

2.) the NT quotes often from the LXX, so it is a valid translation.

 

[Douggg]

IOW Four kingdoms would come from Alexander and in the latter end of their kingdom, would rise an insolent king.

Four kingdoms is not one kingdom.

 

[claninja]

Four kingdoms is not one kingdom.

As already shown via the book of 1 Maccabees. The kingdom of Greece was divided amongst Alexander’s generals into “four kingdoms” - (Seleucids, ptolemies, pergamon, and macedon). However, by the Jews and even secular history, these four kingdoms were still considered the singular Greek empire.

 

[Douggg]

As already shown via the book of 1 Maccabees. The kingdom of Greece was divided amongst Alexander’s generals into “four kingdoms” - (Seleucids, ptolemies, pergamon, and macedon). However, by the Jews and even secular history, these four kingdoms were still considered the singular Greek empire.

What happened to your rules of grammar ? In the text, it is four kingdoms - not kingdom.

Look at what you are doing, claninja. You are making four kingdoms into one kingdom. And time of the end as not the time of the end. And ignoring that the king of fierce countenance in verse 23 stands up against the Prince of princes - Jesus, in verse 25.