Dan. 9:26 'Emendation'
As such, I hereby suggest a realistic call for the ‘Emendation’ of the Hebrew word עם.
Going forward then, the next words of concern in the Daniel 9:26 transliterations is the Hebrew words ‘am’ (om) עם which is KJV transliterated as ‘people’ and 'im (om) which denotes ‘with’. Regarding 'am vs. 'im, these two words do look pretty much identical in Hebrew. In fact, they both have the same two consonants (ayin and mem) – Strong’s Hebrew #’s 5971-5974.
The only difference is their vocalization,
with the word for
and the word for
which would have been represented historically in either of these words
(i.e., the use of a
to indicate which vowel was present), date to the era of the Masoretes
(circa A.D. 800, give or take), so they are in a sense
Interpretations and Derivations
generated from the original word.
Strong’s numbers were NOT even mentioned nor applied to Scriptural texts
until the mid 1800’s.
Dan 9:26 – Original Hebrew Tanakh (Masoretic Text)
As can be seen below the interpretative ‘manipulation’ of the above MT becomes unnecessary with the emended application of the Hebrew ‘im’ (with) rather than that of ‘am’ (people) and is then in COMPLETE agreement with the LXX.
Greek Septuagint - LXX
9:26 – KJV
To this end, the "HE" of the LXX Dan. 9:26 above and the "HE" of the MT of Dan. 9:27 reveals that God gave the Spiritual Authorization for the 70 A.D. destruction while as history records the prince Titus Caesar was the Literal ‘instrument’ by means of which the 70 A.D. destruction was carried out. Moreover, in the Spirit world Titus Caesar most certainly could NOT have undertaken such a task without the Spiritual permission and authority of God Himself. See http://www.shalach.org/YeshuaMessiah/Dan.%209.26.html
To this end, if you will be so kind as to read Lk.
20:9-17 and tell me just who the “HE” is that will “destroy” the city and
the sanctuary PEOPLE – Jews (especially vs. 20:16) – it will be most
Likewise, if you will be so kind as to read Gal.
3:15-17 and once again tell me just who the “HE” is that “confirms the
covenant” with the Jews – (especially vs. 3:17) – it will be most
This will invariably answer the question of who the “HE” is in both Dan. 9:26 & 27 in either the MT or the LXX.
Meanwhile, is the MT always correct?
The MT below begs the question of how could Ahaziah assume the Kingdom from his father Jehoram at his father’s death and be older than his father was? According to the MT Jehoram, was 38 years old when he died and his son was 42 (or 22) years old when he was appointed to take his place as King.
In summary, while NOT personally advocating the LXX over the MT in any way, the LXX however, does get the above Passages right.