Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meaning of Daniel 8:13-14 ?
Eddy Pengelly
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 40 (162306)
11-22-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by purpledawn
11-21-2004 9:22 AM


Daniel was given the interpretation of his vision (8:13-14) in Daniel 8:15-26
The two verses you quote are speaking of two different time periods:
8:15-26 is about Greece, then the Roman Empire and its later Holy Church and office of Pope;
8:13-14 is about the End Times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by purpledawn, posted 11-21-2004 9:22 AM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by spin, posted 11-27-2004 1:39 AM Eddy Pengelly has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 17 of 40 (162699)
11-23-2004 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by TheClashFan
11-21-2004 1:53 PM


First off, I tip my hat to you for your brilliance. That would be very interesting if you did go look through history for such things, and I think you will find them. Other than that, I am not well versed enough in the Bible to be a real part of this discussion, but thank you for introducing me to such a new idea about the Bible and it's translation
don't encourage him.
strong's concordance is not a tool for translation in the way he is using it. it is good for providing contextual meanings of words, and that it all. the bible is not some kind of secret code book that has to be cracked using a study tool written 2000 years later.
i wasn't joking when i said he's looking for secret messages about cd-roms. read his older posts. i've been debating with him for a while.
right now, i'm trying to demonstrate why this kind of "decoding" is wrong, by decoding his posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by TheClashFan, posted 11-21-2004 1:53 PM TheClashFan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by TheClashFan, posted 11-23-2004 8:14 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 40 (162703)
11-23-2004 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eddy Pengelly
11-16-2004 5:12 AM


sound like a good translation to you?
quote:
Pro 10:25 As the whirlwind passeth, so [is] the wicked no [more]: but the righteous [is] an everlasting foundation.
h-word 05492 "whirlwind" mean's storm-wind, but comes from 05486 meaning "stop." in water, a whirlwind would be called an "eddy"
h-word 05674 "passeth" means "to pass over or by or through, alienate, bring, carry, do away, take, take away, transgress"
h-word 07563 "wicked" means "guilty" or "criminal"
h-word 06662 "righteous" means "just"
h-word 05769 "everlasting" means "peretual" but comes from 05956 meaning "to hide"
h-word 03247 "foundation" means "base" but comes from 03245 meaning "to fix"
so,
stop eddy from his trangressions, wickedly just hiding his fixes.
no?
more from you
quote:
The point of this exercise is that, if we have been told the wrong start and end
h-word 08376 "point" means "to mark out"
h-word 04639 "excercise" (operation) means "deed" or "work"
h-word 0582 "we" means "man"
h-word 05046 "told" means "to be conspicuous"
h-word 02555 "wrong" means "violence"
h-word 07225 "start" (beginning) means "first, beginning, best, chief" which comes from 07218 maning "head"
h-word 07093 "end" comes from 07112 meaning "to cut off"
so,
mark out the work of this conspicuous man violently; cut off his head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 11-16-2004 5:12 AM Eddy Pengelly has not replied

  
TheClashFan
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 40 (162767)
11-23-2004 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by arachnophilia
11-23-2004 4:13 PM


I am not sure about this decoding either, but if it's something that he belives in, I would love to see more evidence. Again, I say that the Bible has a different meaning for every person, and perhaps this decoding is his. I find the idea rather clever, though I have not studied or read much about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 11-23-2004 4:13 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by arachnophilia, posted 11-24-2004 12:53 AM TheClashFan has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 20 of 40 (162814)
11-24-2004 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by TheClashFan
11-23-2004 8:14 PM


well have a look at my decodings of his messages. i'm using the same technique. how valid are my "translations?"
and seriously, go have a look at his older messages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TheClashFan, posted 11-23-2004 8:14 PM TheClashFan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by TheClashFan, posted 11-24-2004 1:50 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
TheClashFan
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 40 (162959)
11-24-2004 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by arachnophilia
11-24-2004 12:53 AM


Okay...I really don't know what to think. To each, his own. Again, I say that if he sees it fit to continue, then he should. Each person's mind works differently, and I think he sees something in it that we may not yet comprehend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by arachnophilia, posted 11-24-2004 12:53 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by arachnophilia, posted 11-24-2004 2:20 PM TheClashFan has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 22 of 40 (162963)
11-24-2004 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by TheClashFan
11-24-2004 1:50 PM


no. that's like saying the bible codes are valid. it's just simply wrong. he can think it if he wants, sure, but he's wrong.
if you look at his previous threads, i've posted HUNDREDS of times explaining every logical fallacy, improper conclusion, distortion, and bad methodology, and why each bit is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TheClashFan, posted 11-24-2004 1:50 PM TheClashFan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by TheClashFan, posted 11-24-2004 2:28 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
TheClashFan
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 40 (162965)
11-24-2004 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by arachnophilia
11-24-2004 2:20 PM


But how do you know that he's wrong if the Bible speaks differently to each person? I think that's what it's mostly about, and if he looks hard enough for something, he'll find what he's after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by arachnophilia, posted 11-24-2004 2:20 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 11-24-2004 2:40 PM TheClashFan has replied
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 11-24-2004 2:43 PM TheClashFan has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 24 of 40 (162969)
11-24-2004 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by TheClashFan
11-24-2004 2:28 PM


But how do you know that he's wrong if the Bible speaks differently to each person? I think that's what it's mostly about, and if he looks hard enough for something, he'll find what he's after.
have you seen my decodings of his post? see the one up above. how do you KNOW that he's not encoding secret messages telling me to cut off his head?
what he's doing is taking a hebrew text (600 bc), which has been translated into greek (200 bc), and re-translated into modern (1600's) english, and then looking at a book that catalogs where each word is used in the text and their understood meanings (in the 1800's), and using it to re-translate the english text into whatever meaning he wants.
this is an invalid method. here, his meaning is not THAT far from the original, but i do not think that the hebrew were writing about cd-roms, computers, and the like. this is a case of major crackpottery.
if we want a good translation, it's a lot better to take the most direct route. meanings are distorted VERY far even after going through just a few languages. and the origin of the root does not always indicate the meaning or context of the word. strong's concordance is not a decoder ring, and it was not designed to change meanings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by TheClashFan, posted 11-24-2004 2:28 PM TheClashFan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by TheClashFan, posted 11-24-2004 2:43 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 25 of 40 (162971)
11-24-2004 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by TheClashFan
11-24-2004 2:28 PM


look:
he said this:
quote:
The point of this exercise is that, if we have been told the wrong start and end
but did he really mean this?
quote:
mark out the work of this conspicuous man violently; cut off his head.
because that's what i decoded it to, using his methods. is what i did valid, or reflect the intentions of the author, or what he meant? do you think he's really secretly telling us that we should behead him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by TheClashFan, posted 11-24-2004 2:28 PM TheClashFan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by TheClashFan, posted 11-24-2004 2:50 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
TheClashFan
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 40 (162972)
11-24-2004 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by arachnophilia
11-24-2004 2:40 PM


Well, his theory is not something that I would take very seriously, because the Bible is different to me, but I still say that he should persue it if he wishes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 11-24-2004 2:40 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
TheClashFan
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 40 (162974)
11-24-2004 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by arachnophilia
11-24-2004 2:43 PM


He probley isn't trying to tell us to cut off his head. I really don't know much about the subject, of course, but I still say that if he enjoys doing it, shouldn't he? Even if you think he's wrong, he should be able to do things that he wishes to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 11-24-2004 2:43 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by arachnophilia, posted 11-24-2004 4:26 PM TheClashFan has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 28 of 40 (162997)
11-24-2004 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by TheClashFan
11-24-2004 2:50 PM


sure, but he doesn't seem to understand why what he's doing is incorrect.
and it's not subjective matter of whether i think it's right or wrong. i think i have demonstrated rather objectively that his methods are completely erronious.
i've even said numerous times: i have no problem with believing in time travellers and that they altered biblical history. i'm fine with his crackpot idea, he can have it. but his methods are in question, not his belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by TheClashFan, posted 11-24-2004 2:50 PM TheClashFan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by TheClashFan, posted 11-24-2004 5:42 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
TheClashFan
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 40 (163011)
11-24-2004 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by arachnophilia
11-24-2004 4:26 PM


Alright. I find that I must leave this conversation, then, for I have no previous experiance with such things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by arachnophilia, posted 11-24-2004 4:26 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
spin
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 40 (163415)
11-27-2004 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eddy Pengelly
11-16-2004 5:12 AM


Questioning the text
In struggling with a verse from Daniel 8, Eddy has trouble with the fact that translators saw the necessity to add words to the text, to whit:
quote:
Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain {saint} which spake, How long {shall be} the vision {concerning} the daily {sacrifice}, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
The words in curly braces are added by the translator.
Let me give a little background to the art of translation. One takes a language different from the target language in many ways and attempts to convey the meaning content of the original into the target. One difference between Arabic and English is that there is no verb "to be" in Arabic, so you can't say "He is a doctor" in Arabic, just "He doctor". You would therefore translate from Arabic inserting the verb "to be" where necessary and, as there is no "a" in Arabic, the translation would look like this: "He {is}{a} doctor".
Ancient Hebrew, like modern Arabic which it is related to, has no verb "to be" (at least as we know it), nor an "a". In fact it doesn't have the preposition "of" either. Instead it uses word order to indicate "of", so we should have "transgression {of} desolation". Where the text has the vision {concerning} the daily {sacrifice}, the insertion of {concerning} would grammatically be understood as vision {of} the daily {sacrifice} and "concerning" is merely a clarification of the "of" in order for the reader to understand more easily.
As to {sacrifice}, the word for "daily" in Hebrew is TMYD, tamid (ancient Hebrew had no vowels, so it means to say the word we have to add the vowels!), which is also the technical term in Jewish temple practice for the daily sacrifice. (There is in fact a tractate in the Mishnah dealing specifically with this sacrifice, not strangely called "Tamid".) Each of the sacrifices had a technical name. The "whole offering" also known as "holocaust" is called `LH, olah, which has the appearance of a verb meaning "to go up", as it was the sacrifice meant specifically to go up to God.
As to another saint said unto that certain {saint}, in English we need to add {saint} for grammatical purposes, though in Hebrew it is obvious from the context.
What we have with those "added" words is the translator rendering as closely as he could the significance of the original text.
In order to question "the accuracy of the translation of the Bible's words" you need to do better than merely consult Strong's without having any understanding of the Hebrew text, Hebrew grammar, or Hebrew morphology. You need to pay the translators the courtesy of having as much knowledge as they did if you intend to criticize their efforts.
spin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 11-16-2004 5:12 AM Eddy Pengelly has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024