John

What is your take on this particular prophecy?

What part of Daniel 5 do you believe is misunderstood by so many?

Miscue:-o

Read: ‘their’ where there now exists a ‘there’. They’re, that’s fixed

>>What part of Daniel 5 do you believe is misunderstood by so many?<<

What understanding do most ‘readings’ of “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin” tend to yield? Does a

particular, or direct, ‘understanding’ of a matter disallow other, perhaps more obscure, exposition(s)?

(I am not saying that the prophecy of Daniel 5 is understood entirely. What I do proffer – is that the time element decreed for the exposition of Daniel, chapter 5 included – is now)

John I found another site, that has a fairly good explanation of the 1290 and the 1335 day prophecy, but it is using the Millerite version, well...makes some sense, but why is there two?

Am I to believe there is no clear interpretation of this message? That is may only be clearer later on in time?

Ulrike Unruh's 1260, 1290, 1335 Day/Years, Prophetic Meaning

QR frame:

This does not address Ulrike – as I admire and respect her efforts and her wisdom – having followed much of her contributions to different forums...

The above stated: Firstly, and lastly, the Book of Daniel is time-stamped. End of story.

Again, I am put to mind an incomplete set of legos from which one might construct all manners of interesting objects but – in the end – it remains an incomplete set of leggos with its several ‘interesting’, though questionable, constructs. Or, in the matter at hand – narratives.

One might understand the emotional need of an emergent association to develop a mark, uniqueness, or peculiarity that distinguishes; however,

how does one harmonize the need of a self-stylized ‘remnant’ with the

seeming disregard for the proscriptive language of Daniel 12, however good-intentioned or however obstinate that need proves?

The following is taken from my archived [?] "potpourri" thread, post #24226


Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin*

Why did Gd elect to write 'those' words when, being the linguist He obviously is, He might have simply written, to effect, “Listen-up, goodfella, tonight you will, justifiably, lose both your life and the kingdom”, or some other equally well-expressed sentiment.

Were Gd to have written, “Mene, Tekel, Upharsin”, with an implicit meaning in the Aramaic, ‘number(ed), weigh(ed), division(s)’, --would that have sufficed? --without the redundant "Mene"? to convey

what Gd intended that it should convey --to both Belshazzar and --to those for whom the book of Daniel would eventually be unsealed? In other words,

how is the intent of the message better served by repeating “Number(ed), Number(ed),…”? that is, “Mene, Mene,…”? unless…

Aramaic

Mene
Mene
Tekel
Upharsin

Hebrew

Minah = 1000 gerahs
Minah = 1000 gerahs
Shekel = 20 gerahs -- (shekel, a fiftieth part of a thousand)
Peres = 500 gerahs -- (peres, a half part of a thousand)
_______________________________
'seven times' = 2520

The ‘coinage’ in the two columns above and the redundancy of "Mene" (without which there would have been only a configuration, in the Hebrew, of 1520 --best defined as meaningless) suggests to me the use of a form [Hebrew] within a form [Aramaic] by Gd; its meaning readily apparent to Daniel. Also,

given what I have suggested in the above, Gd apparently, took some care in composing the message, which was written on the wall at the feast of Belshazzar… Otherwise,

if Gd had employed straightforward language, much of what [I take] to have been concealed (per Dan 12:4 …shut up the words, and seal the book…) should have been readily understood, without need of sending for Daniel to interpret the writing.

(It might be of interest to those unawares, that the Babylonians used a sexagesimal number system, that is, their base [number] was 60; whereas; we tend use a decimal system. That may have been why

they could not decipher the ‘numbers’, which appeared on the wall) Anyway,

note that Belshazzar asked Daniel for an interpretation -- not a translation. Daniel acceded and provided Belshazzar with the sense of the writing. That being said,

Daniel interpreted (paraphrased) the writing utilizing, according to the KJV, twenty-nine words where there had been but four upon the wall. Though we have had the ‘sense’ of the writing on the wall per Daniel 5:25-28, we’ve really not had what might be a literal translation (or transliteration) of the writing on the wall…

Is the meaning of Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin/Peres important?

*two minas, a shekel, and a half-mina: There are some who suggest that Upharsin and Farsi [meaning Persia(ns)] are etymologically related. That may be so, but I’m not inclined to agree. I mention it only in passing, as someone might be interested.

[ed.jasd]

I'd say that is very much your opinion, I openly and respectfully disagree!

>>I'd say that is very much your opinion, I openly and respectfully disagree!<<

No, that is Gd's prerogative to have time-stamped the Book - which He did. Contrary opinions to that fact are unsustainable; however,

it is your right to disagree with either myself - or Gd.

I was wondering how it was that my mention of Claudia drew no interest.

Sorry not with you here! Don't know who is Claudia. Waht is the relevance?