Could Daniel 10:1 be the End of Chapter Nine?

Dear Brother Jeff,

Please convey my thanks and love to Kathy, Bronwyn, and Jason. They made us feel wanted and cared for and we will always be grateful. I’m especially grateful for the opportunity you have offered to help with your written presentations. . . .

We purchased the Blythe DVDs and some books. In the short week we have been home, I have tried to listen to Russell’s presentations in that year-ago school, hoping to gain a foothold to understand his presentations this December. I’ve spent many hours on that project, some of them shared with my wife D., and sometimes I feel I’m getting the idea; then D. points out that my idea is wrong. What I’m trying to say is, that although my English is strong, I am too often prepared to express an idea I’ve gained, without asking her to edit me. Everyone needs an editor, I most specially.

I am about to express a pet idea of mine which seems to contradict one of yours. I know these DVDs are from your position a year ago, and it may have changed in some respects since that time. We haven’t received the DVDs from the recent session and I can’t check my observations.

Especially I want to emphasize that my approach to study is far different from yours, and not likely to produce the wonderful challenges you do. And even in my approach, I do not have the necessary education to really study the original languages; I rely only on my observations of a few verses of scripture. Several years ago I noticed a curious network of strange translations surrounding the 2300 days, and I have mentioned it to you earlier. Now I need to present it in detail to you and ask your consideration of it. The bottom line is that I think you have made a very minor error in saying that the last vision of Daniel begins with 10:1—I believe that Daniel 10:1 is the last verse of the previous vision.

It often occurs in the Bible that the translators have placed verse and chapter divisions with which we do not agree—but I can’t think of a good example at this moment, except Daniel 10:1.

Please refer to Daniel 10:1 and its relation to Daniel 9:23:

At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

Daniel 10:1: In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision..

Daniel 9:23:

understand- biyn

the matter- dabar

and consider- biyn

the vision- mareh

We are seeing only the roots of the Hebrew words in Strong’s, and the actual words are probably different in sound, in particles, etc. But “understand” and “consider” are both translated from the same root.

This structure is a chiasm, a kind of poetry where the writer is emphasizing an idea by expressing it a second time in different words. I believe Daniel is being told to understand the vision by understanding the matter.

Dabar (matter) is most often translated “word” including speech, sayings,—about 800 times out of 1441 occurrences in the Bible.

Mareh is the name Jesus gave to the 2300- days part of the vision of chapter 8. It would certainly be fair to translate Daniel 9:23 understand the word and understand the 2300 days.

Now look at Daniel 10:1: as you point out, “thing” occurs three times in the verse, always translated from dabar. In English this hides from us the back-reference to Daniel 9:23, which is more apparent if we do not translate dabar:

A dabar was revealed unto Daniel . . . the dabar was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the dabar and had understanding of the 2300 days.

Because of this very close association, I believe Daniel 10:1 should have been numbered Daniel 9:28, and the chapter should have begun with Daniel 10:2. I realize that the Hebrew scribes were probably the ones responsible for the chapter separations (as you know, the text was written in blocks), but could not verify since my Interlinear shows only a colon ending sentences, not the original panels of script.

Anyway, I do not think that “a thing was revealed unto Daniel” constitutes a separate vision, and it seems very clear that the vision of Daniel’s understanding in 10:1 was the 2300 days of 8:14. For that reason I would have agreed if you had said that Daniel’s last vision began with 10:2.

At this point in my study of the DVDs of Blythe, I have a short list of questions and comments. Remember that my middle name is Pikipiki, and I’m hoping that my editorial comments are accepted as trying to help.

DVD #2 chapter 1 frame 8: Rendering should be Rending.

I have eliminated the words incredible and unbelievable from my vocabulary, and I urge that all speakers for the Lord should do so as well. Both words mean that the information indicated is not true; but this meaning has been corrupted in our generation to mean wonderful. You use them correctly, but I wonder whether your listeners derive the correct meaning?

You have made a great point of the meaning of the names of prophets. However I think I understand that God first chose in sequence two men to carry His message to our pioneers: Foy and Foss. If either of those men had become a prophet, would their names have fit the pattern? My wife tells me the Seventh-day Adventist church claims 18 million members at this time. If the proportion of 1000:1 were applied, that would indicate 18,000 among the 144,000, which sounds about right.

You emphasize that the Close of Probation is THE all-important test; but I think there will be others of equal importance to follow. I would not like to teach that one who passed the first test is guaranteed to pass all the others as well. You repeat that the “at that time” of Daniel 12:1 is best answered by the events of 11:44, 45; but pleasenote that verse 40 also begins with “at that time.” I saw it and kept waiting for you to acknowledge it in your talk.

Regarding King of kings and Lord of Lords, you make a great point of the capitalization; but please recognize that capitalization is a style in the hands of the translators and editors, not of the author.

Lord (capitalized) is the style used specifically to indicate Yahweh in the KJV (most editions) Old Testament. The same style in the New Testament of course indicates something entirely different, since YHWH does not appear in Greek. I find it very interesting that the editors of Review and Herald, and Signs of the Times, adopted a new style about the turn of the century, in that they began to capitalize even pronouns which they thought were meant to indicate deity. But in each case where we read such capitalization in our Bibles, we must be very careful to evaluate who is speaking, and remember that the style is only a fashion of the editors.

I was asked by a reader to capitalize Him when Ellen White referred to Jesus, even though it might appear in the older papers as him. I had found several instances where I could not be entirely sure whether divinity was meant, and I refuse to do so. (Modern style books deplore the style, but for different reasons.) I agree with my correspondent that capitalization makes it easier for the reader to “understand,” but is the understanding correct?

Bottom line: King is capitalized when part of a proper name: King Nebuchadnezzar, not otherwise: king of Babylon. When we write King of kings, we indicate that Deity is King over the kings (lowercase) of earth. But when you write Lord or Lords (both uppercase) on your slides, you are indicating that Jesus is Lord over the other (heavenly) Lords.

Enough criticism already. I found a wonderful insight in Leslie Harding’s, Jesus Is My Judge: he says that when Daniel heard Jesus say “unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,” Daniel knew that the sanctuary was cleansed on only one day of the year—the Day of Atonement—and that he knew therefore, that the vision was for 2300 years. That is a much more satisfactory explanation than my own guess, which had been that Daniel counted 2300 days, and when the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled, then he knew it was for years, not days.

Interesting: that tsaba’ is usually translated host or hosts 391 times, war, armies, battle 83 times out of 485 occurrences, time appointed only once, Daniel 10:1.

Again I ask you to study my poor explanation of the network of strange translations around the 2300 days. I believe no other prophecy has so many forward- nd back-references to indicate to us its extreme importance. And the fact that these references were so obvious in Hebrew, and so hidden in English, tells me that God Himself did the sealing, and also did the opening of the seals at the time of the end. As you know, I believe God was present in the congregations of translators of the KJV; which no other translation can claim. CT

Response

Dear Brother CT,

A few points—in response to your email. You sent me some of these thoughts on the word dabar a few years ago and I accepted your insight, although have not fully settled into what line of truth is being tied together as he employs these words in his writings. As always, I refuse to think that the words Daniel uses are an accident, so there is certainly something relevant there that is clouded by what I would say is an inconsistent translation, though I have no criticism for the translators.

I understand your thinking on Daniel 10:1, but when chapter nine begins with 9:1 “In the first year of Darius” and chapter ten begins with “In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel” it is hard for me to insist that verse one of chapter ten should be part of chapter nine, and verse two the starting point for chapter ten. In terms of the message I have no problem following your logic, and I certainly believe the entire book of Daniel needs to be addressed as a whole unit of thought, in spite of the different languages and time periods in which it is written, the different languages it is written in, and even more than one author. At least in one sense the book of Daniel is simply an expression of truth that was produced by the mind of the Holy Spirit, or the word of Christ. That being said, I agree with the line or connection you are noting with the word dabar.

When it comes to names in the Bible, I have noted an interesting phenomenon, though I have not and am not now attempting to prove or establish the following observation. I have checked many names of people and places in God’s word for their meaning. In doing so, I find that almost always, when the meaning is found it has a direct relationship with the story at hand. Also I have found that almost always, men who represent God’s faithful people in the passage have a godly name or meaning, but the wicked in the passage usually have a meaning consistent with their ungodly role. But many times, when it comes to the names of the ungodly in the passage, there is no known meaning for their names. I have come to believe, (though I have not proved) that this refers to the fact that the godly will have their names recorded and remembered in the book of life, but the ungodly will not.

Although I have not done an exhaustive search for the names of Hazen Foss and William Foy there is an interesting, though no doubt unimportant observation. The historical account of Hazen Foss is that he ended up as a lost man, but not so with William Foy. Though Foy declined the prophetic office it appears at a surface level that he continued to be a practicing Christian. In my limited search of the meaning of Hazen Foss, there is no meaning for either name, whereas with William Foy his name means as follows:

William (Short form Wil) This popular Christian name has many variations in different European languages. There are more than forty saints of this name. It originates from German and means “strenuous guardian”.

Foy\, n. [F. foi, old spelling foy, faith. See {Faith}.]1. Faith; allegiance; fealty. [Obs.] — Spenser.

So William Foy would or could mean “strenuous guardian of the faith”. Jeff.

Published by

Leave a Reply to ZulmaTeppery Cancel reply