Daniel 11:37 - "the desire of women" - what is the meaning?

[Nazaroo]

"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." (Dan. 11:37 KJV) Jubilee Bible 2000 Neither shall he care for the God of his fathers, nor the love of women, nor care for any god, for he shall magnify himself above all. King James 2000 Bible Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. American King James Version Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. American Standard Version Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all. English Revised Version Neither shall he regard the gods his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. Webster's Bible Translation Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. World English Bible Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all. Young's Literal Translation And unto the God of his fathers he doth not attend, nor to the desire of women, yea, to any god he doth not attend, for against all he magnifieth himself. New American Standard Bible "He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will magnify himself above them all.

Many have identified this verse with the Vatican RC 'priesthood',
because of their supposed celibacy vows,
long recognized by Protestantism as a perversion of God's intent.

To counter this meaning,
Roman Catholic translators alter this verse.

For instance:

Roman Catholic Versions: Douay-Rheims Bible: And he shall make no account of the God of his fathers: and he shall follow the lust of women, and he shall not regard any gods: for he shall rise up against all things. Living Bible (TLB) He will have no regard for the gods of his fathers, nor for the god beloved of women, nor any other god, for he will boast that he is greater than them all. The 'Modern' Translations: New International Version He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. New Living Translation He will have no respect for the gods of his ancestors, or for the god loved by women, or for any other god, for he will boast that he is greater than them all. English Standard Version He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all. International Standard Version He'll recognize neither the gods of his ancestors nor those desired by women— he won't recognize any god, because he'll exalt himself above everything. NET Bible He will not respect the gods of his fathers--not even the god loved by women. He will not respect any god; he will elevate himself above them all.

What exactly is the original Hebrew?

לז וְעַל-אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתָיו לֹא יָבִין, וְעַל-חֶמְדַּת נָשִׁים וְעַל-כָּל-אֱלוֹהַּ לֹא יָבִין: כִּי עַל-כֹּל, יִתְגַּדָּל. Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers; and neither the desire of women, nor any god, shall he regard; for he shall magnify himself above all.

When we turn to the various commentaries available,
we nonetheless find some confusion and some variance of opinion
on the exact meaning of this phrase.

Part of the problem is in the apparent confusion as to whom the prophecy
is about. Is it about Antiochus? or the Future Anti-Christ? or both?

Those who try to force Daniel to only deal with Antiochus (circa 165 B.C.)
and who date Daniel as a 'late pious forgery' usually attempt a historical interpretation.

The problem with applying it to Antiochus is that it literally contradicts
all that is known about Antiochus. He was a lustful womanizer,
and apparently huge indulger in lustful passions. The text on its face
says the opposite about its subject.

The remainder of this prophecy is very difficult, and commentators differ much respecting it. From Antiochus the account seems to pass to antichrist. Reference seems to be made to the Roman empire, the fourth monarchy, in its pagan, early Christian, and papal states. The end of the Lord's anger against his people approaches, as well as the end of his patience towards his enemies. - Matthew Henry's Commentary Nor the desire of women - The phrase "the desire of women" is in itself ambiguous, and may either mean what they desire, that is, what is agreeable to them, or what they commonly seek, and for which they would plead; or it may mean his own desire - that is, that he would not be restrained by the desire of women, by any regard for women, for honorable matrimony, or by irregular passion. The phrase here is probably to be taken in the former sense, as this best suits the connection. There has been great variety in the interpretation of this expression. Some have maintained that it cannot be applicable to Antiochus at all, since he was a man eminently licentious and under the influence of abandoned women. Jerome, in loc., John D. Michaelis, Dereser, Gesenius, and Lengerke suppose that this means that he would not regard the beautiful statue of the goddess Venus whose temple was in Elymais, which he plundered. Staudlin and Dathe, that he would not regard the weeping or tears of women - that is, that he would be cruel. Bertholdt, that he would not spare little children, the object of a mother's love - that is, that he would be a cruel tyrant. Jerome renders it, Et erit in concupiscentiis faminarum, and explains it of unbridled lust, and applies it principally to Antiochus. Elliott, strangely it seems to me (Apocalypse, iv. 152), interprets it as referring to what was so much the object of desire among the Hebrew women - the Messiah, the promised seed of the woman; and he says that he had found this opinion hinted at by Faber on the Prophecies (Ed. 5), i.-380-385. Others expound it as signifying that he would not regard honorable matrimony, but would be given to unlawful pleasures. It may not be practicable to determine with certainty the meaning of the expression, but it seems to me that the design of the whole is to set forth the impiety and hard-heartedness of Antiochus. He would not regard the gods of his fathers; that is, he would not be controlled by any of the principles of the religion in which he had been educated, but would set them all at defiance, and would do as he pleased; and, in like manner, he would be unaffected by the influences derived from the female character - would disregard the objects that were nearest to their hearts, their sentiments of kindness and compassion; their pleadings and their tears; he would be a cruel tyrant, alike regardless of all the restraints derived from heaven and earth - the best influences from above and from below. It is not necessary to say that this agrees exactly with the character of Antiochus. He was sensual and corrupt, and given to licentious indulgence, and was incapable of honorable and pure love, and was a stranger to all those bland and pure affections produced by intercourse with refined and enlightened females. If one wishes to describe a high state of tyranny and depravity in a man, it cannot be done better than by saying that he disregards whatever is attractive and interesting to a virtuous female mind. - Barnes' Notes Desire of women.—The language used by Isaiah (Isaiah 44:9), “delectable things,” has led some commentators to think that an idol is here intended. It has been stated that the allusion is to the Asiatic goddess of nature, Mylitta, who, again, has been identified with the “queen of heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18, where see Notes). The context, however, leads us rather to think of human affection, or some other thing highly prized by women, for the words “neither shall he regard any god” would be unmeaning if a god were designated by “the desire of women.” - Ellicott's Commentary Nor the desire of women — This, as some think, means, nor the god that is loved and adored by women; and, taking the clause in connection with the context, this seems the most natural sense of it; for the whole verse speaks of the impiety, or irreligion, of Antiothus, that he had no regard to any god whatever. What god this was that was the desire of women, cannot be certainly said; it is probable it was the moon, (the queen of heaven, as they used to call her,) or some other of the heavenly luminaries; for the Syrian women are described in Scripture as particularly attached to these. Or the expression may refer to his barbarous cruelty, and be intended to signify that he should spare no age nor sex, and should have no regard to women, however lovely or amiable. In fact, the author of the Maccabees informs us, that by his command mothers were killed with their children; and that there was killing of young and old, men, women, and children, slaying of virgins and infants, 2Ma 5:13. - Benson's Commentary

In any case, trying to "pre-emptively interpret" by altering or expanding
and paraphrasing the text has historically done NOTHING to clarify
what the prophet or God intended in this verse.

The best course seems to be to leave the translation as accurate and
as literal as possible, and study it afresh.

We now know that Daniel could not possibly have been a late forgery,
as was the fad - explanation assigned to the book in the 19th century
by unbelievers and German 'higher critics'.

At Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls multiple copies of the book
have been found, and these indicate both the later form of text
(Aramaic/Hebrew sections) and a longstanding textual history of variants,
which could not have arisen in a mere few years under the strict copying
of later scribes.

Daniel is far older than Antiochus (164 B.C.E.) who's activity
was contemporary with the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In his time, Daniel had already had a long copying history.

 

[chrysostom]

sounds like a sultan with many wives

 

[chrysostom]

the king of the south
is
mohammed

 

[Nazaroo]

the king of the south
is
mohammed

have you got an explanation for Daniel 11:37?

 

[RevTestament]

"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." (Dan. 11:37 KJV) Jubilee Bible 2000 Neither shall he care for the God of his fathers, nor the love of women, nor care for any god, for he shall magnify himself above all. King James 2000 Bible Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Many have identified this verse with the Vatican RC 'priesthood',
because of their supposed celibacy vows,
long recognized by Protestantism as a perversion of God's intent.

I didn't realize "many" identify this verse with the Vatican. May I inquire as to whom you refer? Are they historicists? Early Protestants? Commentators?

Antiochus is in the prophecy, but it is way up at verses 14-16

But I will address some reasons why the vile one who places the abomination which maketh desolate cannot be Antiochus.
First and foremost this cannot be because 200 years after Antiochus, Jesus said: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains...." Matthew 24:15-16. What is Jesus prophesying about in the future if Antiochus was the vile one who placed the abomination which makes desolate?

Secondly, Rome, the third kingdom after Darius and the fourth king of Daniel 11:2, consumed the land of the Israelites which does not rise again until the end; Remember Alexander's kingdom "shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those [four]." Daniel 11:4. The Romans must be referenced to complete the vision, because they plucked up the 4 kingdoms of Alexanders 4 generals.

To counter this meaning,
Roman Catholic translators alter this verse.

For instance:

Roman Catholic Versions: Douay-Rheims Bible: And he shall make no account of the God of his fathers: and he shall follow the lust of women, and he shall not regard any gods: for he shall rise up against all things. Living Bible (TLB) He will have no regard for the gods of his fathers, nor for the god beloved of women, nor any other god, for he will boast that he is greater than them all. The 'Modern' Translations: New International Version He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. New Living Translation He will have no respect for the gods of his ancestors, or for the god loved by women, or for any other god, for he will boast that he is greater than them all. English Standard Version He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all. International Standard Version He'll recognize neither the gods of his ancestors nor those desired by women— he won't recognize any god, because he'll exalt himself above everything. NET Bible He will not respect the gods of his fathers--not even the god loved by women. He will not respect any god; he will elevate himself above them all.

I didn't realize this Naz - thanks for pointing that out. For awhile their Bibles also replaced "Chittim" with ships of Italy, while Maccabees refers to Macedonia as Chittim.

What exactly is the original Hebrew?

לז וְעַל-אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתָיו לֹא יָבִין, וְעַל-חֶמְדַּת נָשִׁים וְעַל-כָּל-אֱלוֹהַּ לֹא יָבִין: כִּי עַל-כֹּל, יִתְגַּדָּל. Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers; and neither the desire of women, nor any god, shall he regard; for he shall magnify himself above all.

When we turn to the various commentaries available,
we nonetheless find some confusion and some variance of opinion
on the exact meaning of this phrase.

Part of the problem is in the apparent confusion as to whom the prophecy
is about. Is it about Antiochus? or the Future Anti-Christ? or both?

Those who try to force Daniel to only deal with Antiochus (circa 165 B.C.)
and who date Daniel as a 'late pious forgery' usually attempt a historical interpretation.

The problem with applying it to Antiochus is that it literally contradicts
all that is known about Antiochus. He was a lustful womanizer,
and apparently huge indulger in lustful passions. The text on its face
says the opposite about its subject.

Yep, some good points.

In any case, trying to "pre-emptively interpret" by altering or expanding
and paraphrasing the text has historically done NOTHING to clarify
what the prophet or God intended in this verse.

The best course seems to be to leave the translation as accurate and
as literal as possible, and study it afresh.

Wholeheartedly agree. We cannot change the text to try to fit our interpretations, but must understand the prophecy within the context of its language - otherwise we are subject to err.

Rome comes into the picture way up in verses 14-16 as the one who comes against the king of the north and stops him ie Antiochus Epiphanes.

Another reason verse 31 cannot be referring to Antiochus Epiphanes is that simply not enough years had passed if one accepts the day to year prophetic convention used in Daniel 9. Indeed 1290 yrs from the days referred to in Daniel 12:11 places the prophecy well past the time of Christ.

 

[Bradley D]

It could mean no respect or love for woman. Just as he has no respect for God or anything else. As Satan he puts himself above all things.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

have you got an explanation for Daniel 11:37?

Dan 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

The desire of women is the return of Christ.

Mat 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
Mat 25:2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Rev 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.


Dan 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

Apostate churches and government.

Many Christians get caught up with the love of money, (and the fear of being without it)

Rev 3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
Rev 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.


Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Mat 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
Mat 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Mat 6:27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
Mat 6:28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
Mat 6:29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Mat 6:30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
Rev 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

LA

 

[Danoh]

As is often the case in Scripture; the passage begins and ends with what it is talking about:

Daniel 11:

37. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Who is the God of His father's people? Who is the desire of their women?

John 20:

28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

Luke 1:

28. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

41. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42. And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

The desire of their women was that they be the one chosen to bring the Christ into the world.

He shall not regard Christ as Lord God of his fathers for he shall magnify himself above all.

Guess what - it wasn't Antiochus. The guy is a Jew.

One in particular - John 5:

43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

And many of his kind - Luke 21:

8. And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

Both - 1 John 2:

18. Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

22. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

2 Thessalonians 2:

3. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Tip of the iceberg on this...

 

[chrysostom]

have you got an explanation for Daniel 11:37?

sounds like a sultan with many wives

did you miss that?

 

[CherubRam]

"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." (Dan. 11:37 KJV) In any case, trying to "pre-emptively interpret" by altering or expanding and paraphrasing the text has historically done NOTHING to clarify what the prophet or God intended in this verse. The best course seems to be to leave the translation as accurate and as literal as possible, and study it afresh. We now know that Daniel could not possibly have been a late forgery, as was the fad - explanation assigned to the book in the 19th century by unbelievers and German 'higher critics'. At Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls multiple copies of the book have been found, and these indicate both the later form of text (Aramaic/Hebrew sections) and a longstanding textual history of variants, which could not have arisen in a mere few years under the strict copying of later scribes. Daniel is far older than Antiochus (164 B.C.E.) who's activity was contemporary with the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In his time, Daniel had already had a long copying history.

Good work. Because the verse says "nor regard any god" we can know that the person is an Atheist. As for Women, they would prefer certain Pagan gods not normally desired by men. The prophecy is about a Atheist man who will attack Israel with a Nuclear weapon. The prophecy is a bit confusing because it is speaking of more than one person and event in history, and history to come. Daniel 11:37 (NKJV) 37 He shall regard neither the (God / gods) of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Umm it means "the god beloved of women"

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

The third angel that visited me spoke to me about this man, named Uri Geller, an Israeli man who, at the time the angel visited me, had said in the newspaper that his Mom said, 'When are you going to get a girlfriend, and he said he has no desire for that, but is more immersed with the power/abilities he has. In other words, 'he has no desire of/for women.' Is that clear enough? To jump ahead for a bit, a different angel also told me that this Israeli man shall not worship the God whom his fathers believed, but shall instead worship a 'god of forces,' a god whom his fathers new knew will he honor with gold {watches, gold silverware, etc.}, and silver {silverware, bending spoons with his right hand and his mind}, precious stones {diamonds, sapphires, etc., in watches}, and pleasant things {compasses, moving their hands with his mind and hand, fixing broken watches and small appliances, i.e. can openers, mixers, toasters, etc.}.

In other words, he has said in at least one public interview, that when he tries to pray to God, he gets a big head frustration and sometimes a headache. This all was told to me by the 3rd angel that visited me, back in 1974. You can believe or not. It will not matter to me. I am beyond that, so don't worry. It's in his book. The angel continued to say that this man would urge other people around him to acquire these powers/abilities by concentrating and saying in your mind, Believe, and hovering above the object with your hands. He must have been right-handed, so I guess that's how it goes. He uses his right hand and mind/forehead, primarily, in his endeavors. Now, I must mention here that Uri asked his teacher, 'could Jesus do these miracles?' I don't know if the answer was in his book, but the incident is recorded in one of his earlier books. This makes him the Antichrist, because he tried to consider himself to be like Jesus, because of his powers}.

Now, back to what I was saying a few sentences ago. This man, Uri, shall give his power to others, and those who received his powers, gave them to their friends, etc. This is why it is written, and they could buy or sell to {Rev. 13:17KJV}. Well, Uri was able to lure hundreds of others to acquire his powers, and no one else. And the angel told me that God would only allow six hundred and sixty six other persons to acquire this power, and not anymore. And the angel said, "Let him who hath understanding count the number of the beast/ antichrist, for his number is 666.

Now, the angel explained that the number was as the number of a captain and his soldiers, or a leader and his followers. Do you understand now? Now, a magician had said that Uri was doing all of his powers as a magician; and that was Uri's deadly wound. Then, another guy, a Frenchman, came having the same powers as Uri, and so that healed Uri's deadly wound. This Frenchman is named Jean-Pierre Girard. He is the False Prophet. I know this sounds wild, but I am giving you my testimony as I received it from the angel and from the Lord.

I have newspaper articles to bear witness of my claims. I have saved them. I have 3 strong boxes, all water and fire proof. I hope you all can somewhat understand what I'm saying here. Uri didn't desire women because he was totally into himself and enthralled about himself. That's why he didn't believe in any god, for he shall magnify himself better than any god. Being an Israeli man, very much like a Jewish man, he didn't follow after the laws of his fathers, and did not attend the Holy Days, etc. He was his own love of his life, him and his unique gifts. No one else mattered but him.

Okay, I hope I've shared enough info with you, Nazaroo, and everyone else. There is much more that I could tell you, but I go back in time to remember how things were then. It is all a slower process than you think. And those men who received a mark in their right hands, or foreheads/ minds; it is not a visible mark that we might all see. The mark can be seen by God and his angels, and the devil. Likewise the mark on the 144,000 firstfruits can only be seen by God and his angels, and possibly, the devil. It is a spiritual mark. I will not go into it any further than this for your own sakes, though I do know about it. Well, I've got to close. There's tons I have learned. It can't be written in a small book. My present book fits the important stuff into an 88 pg. book, so people might want to get it and read it, because it is an easy-read. If I wrote an intense book, it would take me a couple years more, I suppose, to venture it.

OK, gotta run. Sometimes a post can take me 1 or 2 hours, or longer.

Praise The Lord!!

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture:

 

[chrysostom]

Michael

you want us to read that?

not cool

 

[CherubRam]

Birdie the bird brain says that rain comes from a big man with a garden hose, saying, "for I know, because I have seen it with my own eyes."

 

[User Name]

The Judaica Press' online English translation of the Jewish Bible translates Daniel 11:37 as follows:

And he will not contemplate the gods of his fathers, and the most desirable of women and any god he will not contemplate, for he will magnify himself over all.​

Rashi's commentary states that "the most desirable of women" refers to "the nation of Israel, [called] fairest of women."

Link to source: http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16494#showrashi=true

 

[daqq]

Hi Nazaroo,

The answer is found in the Testimony of Yeshua. But first "the flesh", just as "the earth", is always likened to be in the feminine gender. The same goes for the priesthood, (which is what this is about) because they serve in the body of the flesh though covered in holy garments. Therefore we understand that nashiym does not necessarily always speak of literal physical women according to the flesh gender of the physical creation body. Nashiym can and does sometimes mean priests or the priesthood, (or the physical body of the "inner man" which dwells therein). Now therefore if you can answer this question perhaps you might be well on your way to your ultimate answer:

Mark 9:12-13
12. And he said unto them, Elijah indeed comes first, to restore all things: and how is it written of the Son of man? that he should suffer many things and exoudenethe? [Daniel 9:26 - "w'eyn low"]
13. Contrariwise, I say unto you, that Elijah is come and they have done unto him whatsoever they desired, as it is written of him.

The head of Yochanan the Immerser is therefore "half the kingdom" just as Herod swears by oath to give the half of his kingdom to the daughter of Herodias, (where by the way Herod is quoting Ahasuerus from Esther 5:3, 5:6, 7:2 in his obnoxious pride). Now therefore where is it written of Eliyahu that they would do to him whatsoever they willed, wished, desired? Half the city went into captivity, and the nashiym were ravished, but the other half was not karath-cut-off, (believe it or not). :crackup:

:sheep:

 

[RevTestament]

Dear All,

The third angel that visited me spoke to me about this man, named Uri Geller, an Israeli man who, at the time the angel visited me, had said in the newspaper that his Mom said, 'When are you going to get a girlfriend, and he said he has no desire for that, but is more immersed with the power/abilities he has. In other words, 'he has no desire of/for women.' Is that clear enough? To jump ahead for a bit, a different angel also told me that this Israeli man shall not worship the God whom his fathers believed, but shall instead worship a 'god of forces,' a god whom his fathers new knew will he honor with gold {watches, gold silverware, etc.}, and silver {silverware, bending spoons with his right hand and his mind}, precious stones {diamonds, sapphires, etc., in watches}, and pleasant things {compasses, moving their hands with his mind and hand, fixing broken watches and small appliances, i.e. can openers, mixers, toasters, etc.}.

In other words, he has said in at least one public interview, that when he tries to pray to God, he gets a big head frustration and sometimes a headache. This all was told to me by the 3rd angel that visited me, back in 1974. You can believe or not. It will not matter to me. I am beyond that, so don't worry. It's in his book. The angel continued to say that this man would urge other people around him to acquire these powers/abilities by concentrating and saying in your mind, Believe, and hovering above the object with your hands. He must have been right-handed, so I guess that's how it goes. He uses his right hand and mind/forehead, primarily, in his endeavors. Now, I must mention here that Uri asked his teacher, 'could Jesus do these miracles?' I don't know if the answer was in his book, but the incident is recorded in one of his earlier books. This makes him the Antichrist, because he tried to consider himself to be like Jesus, because of his powers}.

Now, back to what I was saying a few sentences ago. This man, Uri, shall give his power to others, and those who received his powers, gave them to their friends, etc. This is why it is written, and they could buy or sell to {Rev. 13:17KJV}. Well, Uri was able to lure hundreds of others to acquire his powers, and no one else. And the angel told me that God would only allow six hundred and sixty six other persons to acquire this power, and not anymore. And the angel said, "Let him who hath understanding count the number of the beast/ antichrist, for his number is 666.

LOL. Oh, Michael, Michael.
Uri Geller had no "powers." He was a magician or illusionist and was exposed as such on Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show" where he said he couldn't do his stuff because he didn't feel "strong" that night. This is because Carson, a former magician himself, had consulted another magician named Randi who had told Johnny what to do to "counter" Uri's techniques. For example Uri claimed to be able to pick a ball out of 10 exact steel containers. Randi told Johnny to put a little bit of sticky stuff on the bottom of each container so that they could not be blown around a tray. The trick was that Uri would look for the container that would not move when blown on. The others were empty and would slide just a bit. Uri made it look like he was picking the container when he passed his hand over them.
In fact Randi followed Uri around the circuit reenacting basically all his "powers" using the magicians tools of "slight of hand" or powers of deception. Randi bent spoons and forks just like Uri, etc. Uri tried to sue James Randi but ended up being ordered to pay costs and attorney's fees and later penalties. Now Uri Geller pedals jewelry and crystals on QVC....
Much of this can be read on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Geller

 

[Nazaroo]

Lets see how discussion of the verse has progressed:

(1) We established that there was a second, more longwinded interpretation
of the phrase, introduced into alternate translations by Roman Catholic scholars.

(2) "Username" showed that this idea was influenced by and originated
from the Jewish commentator Rashi in the Middle Ages, possibly the Talmud.

(3) The 'new' interpretation/paraphrase has not helped to clarify the verse.


(4) The attempt to apply everything in Daniel to Antiochus (164 BCE)
was a 'fail' for several good reasons:

(a) Daniel was in circulation long before Antiochus (164 BCE),
and so would remain a detailed prophecy.
Even a plausible (but skeptical) late date (say circa 250-200 BCE)
later than traditional (circa 530 BCE) doesn't solve the prophecy claim or issue. Since the 'late pious forgery' theory was invented to refute
prophecy and re-interpret the book as historical on rational/skeptical lines,
the approach is a waste of time, since it doesn't achieve a solution
to the 'scandal' of detailed prophecy.

(b) The prophecy details don't make good sense when applied to Antiochus.
At the least, the prophecy suggests the opposite of his character.
On its face it suggests a warlord (worshipping the 'god of war') who
simply does not regard or highly value women (a misogynist).
While a philanderer and man-whore can be said to have a low opinion of
women by default, its not really an obvious characterization of womanizers.

(c) The very prophecy is viewed as having descriptive power over 'future' events
mentioned by Jesus the Messiah (circa 30 A.D.), which means that
if they were really meant to apply to Antiochus (circa 164 B.C.),
then Jesus was mistaken, misleading, or adding a new interpretation
meant to supercede the one intended by Daniel.

(d) The requirement to incorporate Rome as the Fourth Empire and also
a player in destruction of the Macedonian/Greek Empire elsewhere in Daniel
precludes any attempt to make Daniel 'end' with Antiochus (164 BCE).
​

(5) The Mysterious World-Leader has three important characteristics:

(a) He is descended from those who originally worshipped God,
quite possibly but not certainly Israelites or Jews:
The phrase "god of his fathers" (Dan. 11:37 a) is usually suggestive of those who
actually knew the true God, i.e., descendents of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, & Jews.

(b) He ends up as an atheist, not honouring any 'god' but himself.

(c) He has no regard for the desire of women,
apparently not heterosexual, probably homosexual (as was common in
military cults) or possibly asexual (having no interest in sex).
​

Thus collectively he appears to be a homosexual atheist Jewish warlord.

No such world leader has yet appeared as such, clearly fulfilling
ALL of the necessary traits without ambiguity...

Several candidates offer themselves: Hitler (half-Jewish?), Stalin (Closet Jew?)... but nothing that clinches the position.


And in any case the 'novelty' Jewish/Roman-Catholic interpretation
appears to be artificial, unnecessarily complex and obscurantist,
and since it is based on the vision of people like Rashi who rejected Jesus as Messiah,
it must also be rejected by Christians as wrong-headed, and confused.
It represents intellectuals without inspiration groping in the dark
for historical explanations that will satisfy 'higher critical' sentiments
about the impossibility of prophecy, and the classification of Daniel
as an apocalyptic 'pseudo-authored' 'late pious forgery'.

 

[Nazaroo]

The modern view of Daniel that has emerged is that it was already
in circulation and had a complex textual history in the 2nd century B.C.,
suggesting that it was much older (see Dead Sea Scrolls evidence).

It is possible that the book of Daniel emerged out of several collected
stories of Daniel, and this might explain the Aramaic Core of the book
(as an earlier preliminary collection) and the surrounding Hebrew portions
(chapt 1, 8-12). The collected stories may have been gathered into
their semi-final form by Daniel himself in his old age, or his assistants,
and fellow-Jewish friends and followers.

The book does contain remarkable prophetic sketches and images of
later empires, complete with unusual details that suggest genuine prophecy.

The book was held in high regard by both Jesus and contemporary Jews,
as well as the early Church.

The book appears to connect to and overlap with the more detailed
future visions found in Revelation, and no complete interpretation will
be possible without considering both Revelation and historical events
which have occurred since Jesus' first advent.

 

[RevTestament]

Lets see how discussion of the verse has progressed:

(1) We established that there was a second, more longwinded interpretation
of the phrase, introduced into alternate translations by Roman Catholic scholars.

(2) "Username" showed that this idea was influenced by and originated
from the Jewish commentator Rashi in the Middle Ages, possibly the Talmud.

(3) The 'new' interpretation/paraphrase has not helped to clarify the verse.


(4) The attempt to apply everything in Daniel to Antiochus (164 BCE)
was a 'fail' for several good reasons:

(a) Daniel was in circulation long before Antiochus (164 BCE),
and so would remain a detailed prophecy.
Even a plausible (but skeptical) late date (say circa 250-200 BCE)
later than traditional (circa 530 BCE) doesn't solve the prophecy claim or issue. Since the 'late pious forgery' theory was invented to refute
prophecy and re-interpret the book as historical on rational/skeptical lines,
the approach is a waste of time, since it doesn't achieve a solution
to the 'scandal' of detailed prophecy.

(b) The prophecy details don't make good sense when applied to Antiochus.
At the least, the prophecy suggests the opposite of his character.
On its face it suggests a warlord (worshipping the 'god of war') who
simply does not regard or highly value women (a misogynist).
While a philanderer and man-whore can be said to have a low opinion of
women by default, its not really an obvious characterization of womanizers.

(c) The very prophecy is viewed as having descriptive power over 'future' events
mentioned by Jesus the Messiah (circa 30 A.D.), which means that
if they were really meant to apply to Antiochus (circa 164 B.C.),
then Jesus was mistaken, misleading, or adding a new interpretation
meant to supercede the one intended by Daniel.

(d) The requirement to incorporate Rome as the Fourth Empire and also
a player in destruction of the Macedonian/Greek Empire elsewhere in Daniel
precludes any attempt to make Daniel 'end' with Antiochus (164 BCE).
​

(5) The Mysterious World-Leader has three important characteristics:

(a) He is descended from those who originally worshipped God,
quite possibly but not certainly Israelites or Jews:
The phrase "god of his fathers" (Dan. 11:37 a) is usually suggestive of those who
actually knew the true God, i.e., descendents of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, & Jews.​

I posit that the Bishop of Rome fits this description, as his predecessors did honor God.

(b) He ends up as an atheist, not honouring any 'god' but himself.

I don't believe one has to be atheist to fit the description. The medieval pontiff claimed a great many titles, including the Vicar of Christ. The word "god" there is from Eloah, the singular of Elohim, and I posit can reference prophets since the chosen people are sometimes referred to as Elohim. In fact in the English Bibles the word is lower case "god." For instance in his titles the pontiff made himself greater than Moses and equal to Melchizedek etc.

(c) He has no regard for the desire of women,
apparently not heterosexual, probably homosexual (as was common in
military cults) or possibly asexual (having no interest in sex).

Since the pontiff takes a vow of celibacy, and requires all priests to, it can be said he fulfills 1 Timothy 4:1-3 forbidding to marry.

No such world leader has yet appeared as such, clearly fulfilling
ALL of the necessary traits without ambiguity...

This conclusion is also incorrect since the vile one sets up the abomination which maketh desolate within a 1290 yr time frame from the time the daily sacrifice is taken away according to Daniel 12:11.
Therefore it occurred at the latest within the 1290 yrs after the destruction of the temple or earlier date.
​