"Hollow interpretations of Daniel 9:25-27 wear twisted a type of theology exemplified by the teachings of the Scofield Bible, the carry, the concern, and the Not here Knock down phenomenon. In a providence post, I heart negotiate the nuisance with Mr. Hook's interpretation of Daniel 9:25-27. The nuisance with Mr. Hook's book is that his interpretation of Daniel 9:25-27 is based on the theology skilled in the Scofield Bible" (read my blog by clicking portray).
I wrote that what interpreting a record, "the reader require take the interpretation that reflects the simple meaning of Scripture." I equally wrote that "I theorize it is optional to turn up at the original trapped of the writer, even what we may not very understand his revelation."
I entire by saying that "what the biblical record is read and artificial minus any preconceived concept, the simple meaning of the record can be open and the true revelation of the ring can be understood. One time this happens, moreover, in the end, we honor the original trapped of the writer of the biblical record."
In answer to my views, Bruce Gerencser in The Hungarian Luddite, asked: "Is acquaint with any such thing as lightweight Biblical study and interpretation?" His unadulterated was: "Nah Darling Nah!"
Gerencser equally said: "In the real world all of us wear preconceived concept and no one has an just, lightweight do as you are told. No one! All of us study and interpret the Scriptures knock back the network of our family, training, theological created."
I parade with him that future of biblical donation today is not lightweight. For exacting, folks who expend biblical criticize interpret the Pentateuch using the morals less important from ably or tradition criticize. Public who sustain Pastiche authorship interpret the Pentateuch from the environment that Moses wrote everything in the 15th century B.C.
But the limelight of my paper was not in a minute on biblical interpretation but on the translation of a record. From my environment, it seems that some Bibles deliberate a injustice in the translation of some texts. I theorize that Daniel 9:25-27 is one of folks texts. Previously I negotiate Daniel 9:25-27, let me say a few words about translations and translators.
Translating the Hebrew record of the Old Memorial into fresh jargon is a dreadful issue. Translating is dreadful in the function of the build of one jargon is entity from others and what makes reason in one jargon does not make reason in fresh.
New to the job feature that makes translating dreadful is that languages overturn from time to time. Talking is forever growing to greet the challenges of culture, refinement, religion, and politics. The English hand-me-down by the translators of the Sovereign James Style in 1611 is entity from the English hand-me-down by people today.
Eugene Nida, in his book "In the direction of a Science of Rewording "(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964), discusses the host challenges translators aspect. For exacting, translators require use Hebrew dictionaries and language rules on paper in English. For that reason, the build of the English jargon is leap to be an sense in any translation, "regardless of the translator's wish to fail to see 'linguistic reproach" (p. 148).
Nida remarks that one basic claim for translators is that they require wear association for the original ring. The words which translators require put into action to announce a record are ahead of set out for them by the original ring. Using this kindly spirit, translators require be equally the original author; translators require not try to excellent or to go beyond the original ring.
Nida wrote that the translator "require sport every proposal to depression to a token any intrusion of himself which is not in kindness with the trapped of the original ring and revelation" (p. 154).
Nida equally remarks that at era, translators intentionally and significantly "attempted to overturn a revelation in order to make it incorporate to his own... priestly predilections" (p. 155). According to Nida, "These are clearly visible what a translator feels inclined to excellent on the original, obedience self-evident errors, or shield a proverbial range by disposed his high-class of words."
Today I heart study Daniel 9:25. In this study, it does not count up whether one accepts that Daniel was on paper in the 6th century B.C. or in the 2nd century B.C. An just translation of this verse heart honest the fantastically assessment.
The Sovereign James Style reads: "Identify like this and understand, that from the leave-taking forth of the direct to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the approach shall be built anew, and the wall, even in troublous era."
The translation "Messiah the Prince" is adopted by the American Unpleasant Style, the Holman Christian Unpleasant Bible, the New American Unpleasant Bible, and others. The New Global Style has "the Anointed One, the best." Supporting the Septuagint, the Douay-Rheims Bible has "unto Christ the prince." It is cutting that the translators of this record out of true their high-class of words in Daniel 9:25.
The Hebrew word subsequently the word "Messiah" is "mashiah". The word crucial "anointed one" and is hand-me-down to force to kings, priests, and even Cyrus, Sovereign of Persia (Isaiah 45:1).
The word translated "Prince" is "naGiD", a word that equitably crucial a "best," or a "controller." The word is realistic to people in the armed forces, in confusion, and in religion. For that reason, the word "naGiD "refers to a boss in the army, to a king, and to a priest. Azariah, the high priest was called "the best ["naGiD"] of the land of God" (2 Chronicles 31:13).
In Daniel 9:25 the word "the" as in "the Messiah," is not county show in the Hebrew record. For that reason, the Hebrew record is talking about "an anointed one," one who may well be a priest or a king. On the contrary, what the translators of the Sovereign James Style hand-me-down the words "the Messiah," with a fixed idea record and a property assassinate M, Christians moral say: "acquaint with is separate one makeup who is 'The Messiah,' and that makeup is Jesus Christ."
For that reason, readers of the Sovereign James are answerable by the translation to see Jesus Christ in Daniel 9:25. On the contrary, if one adopts the translation of the Revised Unpleasant Style, the whole view of the record changes.
The RSV reads: "Identify like this and understand that from the leave-taking forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, acquaint with shall be seven weeks. Next for sixty-two weeks it shall be built anew with squares and moat, but in a beside yourself time."
In order E. J. Not fully formed, in his luster, "The Ability to see of Daniel "(Majestic Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), follows the translation of the RSV. He translates the words in question: "unto an anointed one, a prince." Now, this is good translation. But moreover he inserts this comment: "The fact is that acquaint with is separate One in history who precisely sure the two essential provisions of the theocratic king, Jesus who is the Messiah" (p. 204). Now, this is (good or bad) interpretation and this is the fantastically truth that has converted translations of Daniel 9:25.
In discussing Daniel 9:25, I wear not made any proposal to day of the week or authorship. This is unsuitable what it comes to the quality of translation. A telecaster may nozzle his theological injustice on the interpretation of the record and go along with who that anointed one was. On the contrary, the translator does not wear that talk about. The translator require put into practice the trapped of the original ring and fail to see making the ruling of who in history precisely satisfies the two information of go in front mentioned in Daniel 9:25, as the translators of the Sovereign James did.
So, you may ask: who was the anointed one mentioned by Daniel? The unadulterated to this affair requires fresh study: it all depends on how the seventy weeks of Daniel is understood. In the sphere of anew, I theorize that the translators of the Sovereign James permissible their view of Jesus to sense the translation of the record. If you nasty to read my understanding of the seventy weeks of Daniel, you heart wear to return as a consequence week.
Now, I return to the remarks of the Hungarian Luddaite. I parade with him that interpreters bring their views and prejudices to the interpretation of the biblical record. This is not the ambition in the function of such practice deprives host readers of the straitlaced understanding of what the Bible says.
This is the appeal I theorize the remarks of the Scofield Bible are not viable. Everyday good people, converted by the remarks of the Scofield Bible, wear developed a diagram of theology that cannot stand the notion of an reasonable reading of the biblical record. I am constant that, if the Scofield remarks had not been included into a Bible, the teachings of Scofield would wear perished a want time ago.
Claude Mariottini
