|
|
|
Therefore, the doctrinal confusion which culminated in the erroneous published parallels between Dan. 9:27 and Rev. 13 has its mangled misguided origin in ‘ONE’ misapplied and misunderstood Hebrew word shachath, Strong’s 7843, which is grammatically translated correct in the KJV, et. al., but, in retrospect of relevant history and Scriptural context could have been better applied. (see definition below) shachath, shaw-khath'; a primitive root; to decay, i.e. (causative) ruin (literal or figurative) :- batter, cast off, corrupt (-er, thing), destroy (-er, -uction), lose, mar, perish, spill, spoiler, × utterly, waste (-r).
a.
08686 Stem -Hiphil Mood -Imperfect (Brown Driver & Briggs)
As you will notice from the above definition
of this grammatically defined word that its roots are founded in the
implied Hebrew Hiphil meanings of
‘ruin, decay, destroy and corrupt’,
and are to be taken as either ‘literal’ or ‘figurative’ depending upon the
relevant ‘context’. It was this very word
‘destroy’ in Dan. 9:26 that
was ‘hijacked’ and misapplied ‘literally’ to validate and justify a 2
Prince/prince theory regarding Dan. 9:25-27.
Daniel 9:26
It is my opinion that the transliterated word ‘destroy’ was to be understood in the ‘figurative’ (morally corrupt) and NOT in the ‘literal’ in the above Passage and, was to imply the henotheistic abominable behavior of the Jewish people, which in and of itself lead to the Roman general Titus Caesar’s destruction of both the city Jerusalem and its beloved Holy Temple in 70 A.D. Seeing then that both future KJV Translators (excluding 1611 KJV edition) and other translators had historical facts on their side and to their backs at the time of their publications, which could not be refuted, therefore, neither could their ‘literal’ interpretation of the word ‘destroy’ used in Dan. 9:26 be refuted either. Meanwhile, what was blatantly ignored was the little acknowledged reality that the Romans were also ‘provoked’ by the actions of the Jews themselves to literally destroy the city and the Holy Sanctuary. This is clearly attested to by both Scripture and the first century Jewish historian Josephus. Therefore, a preponderance of evidence that Jerusalem was indeed destroyed by (figurative), because of its own people’s (the Jews) provocative and abominable actions is recorded in the OT prophecies of Micah 3:12 and Jeremiah 26:18. These two ‘symbolic’ prophecies reveal why the intolerable behavior of the Jews led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple. The subsequent fulfillments of these prophecies were accomplished by God’s/Jesus’ appointed agents/instruments - first the Babylonians and then by double prophetic reference again by the Romans in 70 A.D.
Micah
3:12
Jeremiah 26:18
Meanwhile, Josephus reveals in Wars of the Jews - Book V, Chapter VI, Section 1 the following. ...they [Jews] returned to their former madness, and separated one from another, and fought it out; and they did everything that the besiegers could desire them to do. For they never suffered from the Romans anything worse than they made each other suffer; nor was there any misery endured by the city which, after what these men did, could be esteemed new. It was most of all unhappy before it was overthrown; and those that took it did it a kindness. For I venture to say that the sedition destroyed the city, and the Romans destroyed the sedition. This was a much harder thing to do than to destroy the walls. So that we may justly ascribe our misfortunes to our own people... In addition, Josephus reveals in Wars of the Jews - Book IV, Chapter 5, Section 2 the following. ...But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters; but they now betook themselves to the city, [Jerusalem] and plundered every house, and slew every one they met; and for the other multitude, they esteemed it needless to go on with killing them, but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city... Going forward, the original confusion of Dan. 9:25-27 became even more convoluted once again by another unfortunate erroneous translation of a single word in Dan. 9:27, whereby the Hebrew word shiqquwts, Strong’s 8251, has been transliterated in many of the ‘new’ translations of the Bible as a ‘singular’ (abomination) rather than its original Hebrew tense as a ‘plural’ (abominations). The Hebrew transliterated word (letter for letter) ‘shqutizm’ (base word shiqquwts) used here as stated, is in its ‘Plural’ form and, is only used one other time in the OT in this same identical plural form ‘shqutizm’ that being in Hosea 9:10 – Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon.
Hosea
9:10
By a clearly unfounded and arbitrary substitution of the ‘singular’ form of the Hebrew word shiqquwts rather than the actual word’s original ‘plural’ form, translators have arrived at what they now herald as a direct parallel correlation between Matt. 24:15, Mark 13:14 and Dan. 9:27. Look at the Passage for yourself – KJV.
Daniel 9:27
It is from this unfortunate and ‘misapplied’ singular use of the word shiqquwts that many arrive at the unwarranted conclusion that this is a FACTUAL conformation of as stated Matt. 24:15 & Mk. 13:14 and, the prophesied placement of an idol god in a speculative future Jewish Temple by the AC. However, in all reality it is most likely a confirmation of the application of the above suggested word ‘(shachath - morallycorrupted)’, (abominations) by which the abominable behavior of the Jews themselves provoked both God and the Romans to literally destroy their city and Holy Sanctuary and, has NO relation whatsoever to Matt. 24:15 & Mk. 13:14, nor for that matter to Rev. 13. Meanwhile, the problem of Dan. 7:24 and Rev. 17:12 directly reveal and impact the correct translation of Dan. 9:27. Passages are as follows:
Daniel 7:24
Rev.
17:12
As I have stated elsewhere, if the Scarlet Beast of Rev. 17:12 is indeed the man AC then “How can the (un)empowered and (un)kinged 10 perspective kings be in the ‘one hour’ presence of the Beast (AC) to ‘receive’ their Kingdoms if the Beast (Little Horn) is NOT even to rise nor exist until AFTER the crowning of the 10 Kings?” (Dan. 7:24) Likewise, “If the Beast AC does NOT even exist until AFTER the crowing of the 10 Kings then how could he sign an alleged Seven (7) years ‘Peace Covenant’ as the ‘Prince’ of Dan. 9:27 with the Jews for 31/2 years before he ever comes into existence?” The Scarlet Beast of Rev. 13 is among other things the King of the 8th Head of the seven headed Beast (7th and final Kingdom) which clearly per Rev. 13:5, NEVER comes into existence until the last 31/2 years of the Great Tribulation.
Rev.
17:11
Nonetheless, when confronted with this glaring inconsistency supporters of the Prince/AC Theory of Dan. 9:27 resort to stating that, “well, it is actually the 10 Kings who give their power to the Beast”. Be that as it may, it still resolves to the same fact that the Scarlet Beast, if as they suggest is indeed the AC, is still in the ‘one-hour’ presence of 10 uncrowned would-be Kings who according to Dan. 7:24 are to rise as Kings BEFORE the Little Horn. Moreover, in a more sophisticated attempt to once again support their theory of Dan. 9:27 paralleled with Rev. 13 and 17:11-12 as the AC, and to correct the above inconsistency, we once again witness an erroneous ‘misinterpretation’ of Rev. 17:12. How? Below is the original Greek Rev. 17:12 with Strong’s numbers word for word and its final 1611 KJV translation:
12KAI<2532>
(AND) TA<3588>
(THE) DEKA<1176>
(TEN) KERATA<2768>
(HORNS) A<3739>
(WHICH) EIDES<1492>
(THOU SAWEST) DEKA<1176>
(TEN) BASILEIS<935>
(KINGS) EISIN<1526>
(ARE,) OITINES<3748>
(WHICH) BASILEIAN
<932>
(A KINGDOM) OUPW<3768>
(NOT YET) ELABON<2983>
(RECEIVED,) ALL<235>
(BUT) EXOUSIAN<1849>
(AUTHORITY) WS<5613>
(AS) BASILEIS<935>
(KINGS) MIAN<3391>
(ONE) WRAN<5610>
(HOUR) LAMBANOUSIN<2983>
(RECEIVE) META<3326>
(WITH) TOU<3588>
(THE) QHRIOU<2342>
(BEAST.)
Rev.
17:12
Thus, this final Rev. 17:12 KJV translated form is completely unacceptable as is, and as stated above directly conflicts with the Prince/AC Theory of Dan. 9:26-27. But the new Bible translators (please see for yourself) have cleverly attempted to remedy this problem for ALL common and inattentive students of Biblical eschatology. How did they do this? Let us look very closely at a common example of the New International Version (NIV) to see what they did. http://www.biblegateway.com/
Rev. 17:12
They have quietly ADDED the Greek word ‘gar’ (for) to the Passage even though the Greek word ‘gar’ is not ever used in the original Greek Text as shown above. What the unwarranted addition of this word does however is to ‘compel’ by grammatical implication and force upon the reader to accept ‘one hour’ as actually a figurative ‘season’ – they have no other choice. Moreover, the transliterated word ‘hour’ did not even have to be used here if the translators had not wanted to because the word day, season, etc., were all available and allowable grammatical alternatives – which in and of themselves imply a much greater and longer span of time. A point and fact, the same Geek word ‘hora’ and its same exact tense is used as ‘season’ in Jn. 5:35, Phil. 1:15, and 2 Cor. 7:8. So why not here?
Nonetheless, if we look at the statistical
analytical usage of the 2 word phrase
‘one hour’ we find 9 uses
where the phrase is ‘narrowly defined’ to either 1 literal hour or some
event that will occur in an instant. As stated, this 2 word phase is used
in both the OT and the NT: Dan. 4:19, Matt. 20:12, Matt. 26:40, Mk. 14:37,
Lk. 22:59, Rev. 17:12, Rev. 18:10, 17, 19. In addition, the individual
word hour by itself is used
some 22 plus or minus times, and in each and every case the history is the
same as revealed before – either one literal hour or a very instant event
– hence, the day and hour of our
Lord’s return.
Even beyond this we would also need to show and validate relevant context that would necessitate a ‘figurative’ definition be applied to Rev. 17:12 instead of something more literal. While the Prince/AC theorist cries foul to implying a literal here instead of a figurative they preach the opposite when it comes to the literal vs. figurative for ‘destroy vs. corrupt’ in Dan. 9:26. Why? The Passage in and of itself simply states that these 10 Kings have no power as yet but receive power and Kingdoms one hour with the Beast – are there conflicting Scriptures that could suggest that this literal 1 hour or an extremely compressed period of time, meeting between the 10 Kings and the Beast is contrary to other prophetic Passages – there seems to be none. Just give me ‘One Hour’ with Jesus and we would NOT be having this conversation. In summary, in order to support the Theory of the Prince/AC of Dan. 9:27 paralleling Rev. 13 and Rev. 17:11-12, one must accept that the ministry of Jesus consisted totally of 5 days hence, Palm Sunday (The Triumphal Entry) and must also completely ignore ALL prophecies related to the ministry of John the Baptist. |
|
|
