Question on Daniel 12.2 – LXX, how many destinations are there for the Baptists?

καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν τῷ πλάτει τῆς γῆς ἀναστήσονται οἱ μὲν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον οἱ δὲ εἰς ὀνειδισμόν οἱ δὲ εἰς διασπορὰν καὶ αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον (Dan 12:2 LXX)

So… the NETS translates this as everlasting life, shame, and still others to dispersion and contempt (eternally).

That is three places. Three. Everlasting Life. Everylasting shame. Dispersion and contempt.

I’ll let you ponder purgatory for a minute.

Anyway.. what do you think?

Post By Joel Watts (9,934 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, working on the use of Deuteronomy in the Fourth Gospel. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

16 thoughts on Question on Daniel 12.2 – LXX, how many destinations are there for the Baptists?

  1. That’s how you read it? This is how I read it:
    “some to everlasting life”, and some to “reproach and everlasting shame”.
    “Reproach and everlasting shame” is one expression.

    It’s kind of like saying “They will have pain and suffering”. It’s one expression. Not one will have pain and another will have suffering.

    • You can believe in what you want, but that doesn’t make it true. Scripture interpreting Scripture is a logical fallacy, and is not found in Scripture.

        • Oh boy… where to start.

          First, Shakespeare is ONE writer of those works, in a relatively small amount of time. Second, if you want to know what Shakespeare is saying, you have to examine his social situation.

          Second, Scripture, written across centuries, in different contexts, by different authors – sometimes, different authors writing the same book, must be examined in the same way. To use circular reasoning to read Scripture is dangerous to one’s mental stability.

          • So, you are basically saying millions of evangelicals are wrong, but you are correct? That’s pretty arrogant. It’s ok..I was mighty arrogant when I was in seminary too. I focused more on book knowledge and other people’s thoughts and I became puffed up, but less holy. That’s why I quit seminary in my third year.

          • Are you saying the other billion Christians are wrong? Say, that’s pretty arrogant, but that’s okay – I was pretty arrogant when I knew I was right about everything (fundamentalist/evangelical) too.

            I seems that you are still puffed up, Ant, relying on only other people’s thoughts, such as scripture interpreting Scripture.

            You like to throw around the seminary canard, but it makes you seem rather petty.

            Have you gone to seminary to learn, instead of having your views proved right, you may have been better off for it, and not stuck in Evangelicalism, a poor excuse for Christianity.

    • Seems to me, you got what you were looking for – so if you went to seminary to learn, you may have learned. Who is at fault here? Seminary, or you? Looks like you.

      I am saying you are wrong. Your theory of interpretation is not biblical and presents a logical fallacy easily dismissed in one simple step.

Leave a Reply, Please!