Dan. 10:21 Michael and Jesus

Dedicated to the scholarly study of the bible as text and the discussion thereof

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Eloi
Sage
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Dan. 10:21 Michael and Jesus

Post #1

Post by Eloi »

Dan.10:21 reads:

Dan.10:21 (KJV)  But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

Where it said "in these things" could be a little confusing, cause there are two acceptable translations of the original phrasing right there. The other translation is shown here:

Dan. 10:21 (ASV) But I will tell thee that which is inscribed in the writing of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me against these, but Michael your prince.

My post is not abou which one of both is the right translation, BUT in the implications of this verse in the doctrine about Michael being Jesus. In both cases the verse support that belief.

1) If the "more exact" translation according to what the inspired writer meant is the one in KJV, that implies that there were NO OTHER spirit creature besides Michael who can understand those things written in the "scriptures of truth".

2) if the other, then that verse implies that NO OTHER spirit creature besides Michael could have been stronger than the angel speaking, against the demonic spiritual forces.

In both cases the verse implies Michael was Jesus before his birth as a human.

In first place, no creature may have had greater knowledge than Jesus in the heavens about any divine writing,

... and secondly, no other than the angel with the name of Jehovah in him, i.e. Jesus himself in his function as Jehovah's angel (Exo. 23:20-23), could have been strong enough to fight and overcome the demonic spiritual forces talked about before in the context of this verse.

User avatar
tam
Prodigy
Posts: 4212
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Re: Dan. 10:21 Michael and Jesus

Post #2

Post by tam »

Peace to you Eloi,
Eloi wrote: Dan.10:21 reads:

Dan.10:21 (KJV)  But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

Where it said "in these things" could be a little confusing, cause there are two acceptable translations of the original phrasing right there. The other translation is shown here:

Dan. 10:21 (ASV) But I will tell thee that which is inscribed in the writing of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me against these, but Michael your prince.

My post is not abou which one of both is the right translation, BUT in the implications of this verse in the doctrine about Michael being Jesus. In both cases the verse support that belief.
I don't see how that is correct, but we can take a look...
1) If the "more exact" translation according to what the inspired writer meant is the one in KJV, that implies that there were NO OTHER spirit creature besides Michael who can understand those things written in the "scriptures of truth".
I don't think that is quite right.

Here is the verse:

Dan.10:21 (KJV)  But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.


According to this translation and your interpretation of it, there would be two who understand these things: the One who is speaking - and - Michael.

(and of course God as well)


That being said, does holdeth mean understand? Or does holdeth mean support?

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 2388&t=KJV

2) if the other, then that verse implies that NO OTHER spirit creature besides Michael could have been stronger than the angel speaking, against the demonic spiritual forces.
Again, here is the verse:


Dan. 10:21 (ASV) But I will tell thee that which is inscribed in the writing of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me against these, but Michael your prince.


This verse does not state that Michael is stronger than the One speaking - this verse states that there were none supporting (the One who is speaking) against 'these' except Michael.

In both cases the verse implies Michael was Jesus before his birth as a human.

I think you have misunderstood the verses; and your conclusions are based upon that misunderstanding. Neither case implies what you have concluded.


**

There is at least one thing in this chapter that speaks against Michael being Christ (among other reasons):

Michael is described here in Daniel 10 as being one of the chief princes (so there is more than one chief prince); Christ however is the prince (singular) of princes.


Hope that helps!

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Eloi
Sage
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #3

Post by Eloi »

I don't see any difference ...

Let's do something: tell how you interpret the text in Dan. 10:21 and let's see if anything (concerning what I said in my first post) will change.

User avatar
tam
Prodigy
Posts: 4212
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Post #4

Post by tam »

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 3 by Eloi]

I'm just getting ready to go to work, so I will have to get back to you afterward, perhaps late tonight or tomorrow.

Eloi
Sage
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #5

Post by Eloi »

[Replying to post 4 by tam]

Ok. I'm busy too.

I repeat my question to put it clear: write how you interpret Dan. 10:21 and let's see what will change in your interpretation that affects my point in any way ...

Please, be direct, as brief as you can, and even if you need to talk about the context (which is normal), try to focus on Dan. 10:21 so as not to deviate from the matter I am talking about.

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1140
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #6

Post by Overcomer »

Tam has made an excellent point. Michael is called one of many princes (Dan. 10:13). But we know that Jesus is one of a kind as stated in John 3:16 which speaks of him as God's ONLY begotten son. The word "monogenes" translated "only" means unique, one-of-a-kind. Therefore, he isn't one of many as Michael is.

How do you reconcile those verses with your interpretation of verse 10?

Quite frankly, it's impossible to isolate one verse and discuss it without discussing it in the context of the book and, indeed, the entire Bible.

Eloi
Sage
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #7

Post by Eloi »

[Replying to Overcomer]

Can you tell how you interpret Dan. 10:21?

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 6341
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Post #8

Post by onewithhim »

I personally believe that the verse rendered "one of the foremost princes" is better translated: "a prince of the first rank."

To me this shows that Michael was the highest ranking prince. He wasn't just one of many.

Post Reply