« הקודםהמשך »
is not the same as the word rendered divided, in Gen.
Niphleghah, in Gen x: 25, is the verb in the Niphae praet. 3d sing., from palag -- it was divided. The word in Dan. vii: 25 is p'lagh- a dividing - and is the Chaldaic noun from the same root, the root letters being the same in both Chaldee and Hebrew. The simple difference between the words is, that one is a verb and the other a noun. They are just as much the same words as the English words dividing and was divided, both being from the same root, and, of course, having the same radical meaning, the only difference being, that one is a verb and the other is a Chaldaic noun from the same root.
“2. The word in Gen. x: 25, is pahlag, a Hebrew word, signifying to cleave, (or split,) to divide, and is thus rendered by the Vulgate, and other versions."
This is not quite correct. The words pelegh and niphleghah occur in this sense, and only these from the root palagh he divided.
"3. The word in Dan. vii: 25, is not a Hebrew but a Chaldee word.”
Very true; but it is the same word as the Hebrew pelegh, the only difference being that it has a Chaldaic pronunciation, p'legh, instead of pelegh.
" 4th. It is not pahlag, but p'lag."
There is no such word as “ pahlag," either in Hebrew or Chaldee. The writer should have spelt it, if he meant the 'Hebrew noun, pelegh, as above; or, if he meant the root, he should have spelt it palagh. The writer seems to leave the impression on the mind of one unacquainted with the original tongues, that the words are radically different, but their radical and common significations are the same.
“5. It never occurs in any other place in the Bible.”
Very true, in this particular form, as a noun, it does not occur. But then, it does occur as a participle, from the same root in Dan. ii: 41.
“6. It never means anything but just a half. This is the only signification given to it by Gesenius, or any one else that I know of."
That it means a half here, (Dan. vii: 25,) is generally conceded. It is not true, however, as we are lest to infer, that palagh means to divide into two equal parts only. (See Gen x: 25; 1 Chron. i: 19. The division of the earth here mentioned was doubtless the division among the descendants of the three sons of Noah - Shem, Ham and Japheth.
“7th, When the Bible was translated into Greek, about two thousand years ago, they translated plag by the Greek word hemisu, the only meaning of which is a half
“8. The word translated half, in Dan. xii: 7, is the Hebrew word ghatzce or chatzee ; it is defined — 1, half, the half part; 2, the middle, midst, midnight."
To these remarks I would take no exception.
“9. It has no other meaning; it never means an anequal division.
"10. It is translated half in ninety-nine places, and mid, or midst, in the other fifteen where it occurs.
"11. It is translated into. Greek by hemisu, just as the other word is.
The 9th remark refers to the word chetsi, in Dan. xii: 7. What is said of this word in the following remarks
is probably true. But it must be admitted that the root from which it is derived - to divide into two, threo or more parts. (See Gen. xxxiii: 1.)
" And he (Jacob) divided the children unto Leah, and unto Rachel, and unto the two handmaids."
Here is a division, certainly into three parts, and not into two equal parts. (Judg. vii: 16.) “And he divided the three hundred men into three companies.” As to the 10th and 11th remarks, I take no exception.
Yours truly, STEPHEN W. VAIL. Concord, September 3, 1853.”
From the above criticism, we learn that the original term rendered “ dividing” does not necessarily imply a division into two equal parts. As Prof. Vail referred to Gen. xxxiii: 1, to illustrate the usus loquendi of the root, from which the original word chetsi is derived, we will present that verse together with the context:
“And Jacob lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold, Esau came, and with him four hundred men. And he divided the children unto Leah, and unto Rachel, and unto the two handmaids. And he put the handmaids and their children foremost, and Leah and her children after, and Rachel and Joseph hindermost. And he passed over before them, and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother. And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced, him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept. And he lifted
and saw the women and the children, and said, Who are those with thee? And he said, The children which God hath graciously given thy servant. Then the handmaidens came near,
up his eyes,
they and their children, and they bowed themselves.
We perceive from the above passage, that Jacob
The 1290 is not the one
on hormon Dorn
In the preceding Section, we have noticed all the leading items of Dan. vii, as far as v. 25. We now proceed to the judgment, (v. 26,) and the taking away of his (the little horn's) dominion.
Previous to the close of the 1290 days, toleration was granted, but times and laws remained in the hands of that persecuting power until the close of that prophetic period. About one thousand years after the man
of sin took his seat in the temple (Church) of God, darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people; yet light was made to shine out of obscurity, and to those, who sat in the region of the shadow of death, light sprung up. “The loss which the Roman Church sustained by the Reformation was severely felt by her. Her gigantic power had been successfully attacked, and her wide-spread influence was narrowing down.” It became necessary to adopt some means by which she could be sustained, and it was at this time (1540) that the order of Jesuits were formed, " and before the end of the 16th century they had obtained the chief instruction of the youth in every Catholic country in Europe.” In both Europe and Asia immense and splendid missionary establishments were founded. Another plan adopted by the Roman Church was the persecution of protestants. Thousands were put to death for, or in consequencc of, their religion; the Catholics made every effort to regain their power, but it was only a death struggle; the very powers that had sustained her, became her enemies. The Jesuits were driven out of China* in 1722-6, Japan, 1615,t Abyssinnia, 1634,) England, 1604, Venice, 1606, Portugal, 1759, France, 1764, Spain and Sicily, 1767, and the order was totally abolished by Clement, in 1773.|| But while these reforms were in progress, God was preparing a scourge for the apostate government. 66 At the commencement
* Maun. His. of the world, vol. ii. p. 374. + Marsh, p. 298. Ibid.. || Good. Ch. His. p. 183.