The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 1

The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24

Eduard C. Hanganu
© 2013

Communication at Utterance Level

Although biblical interpretation as a discipline has become more scientific in the past
decades, more work must be done in order to establish an adequate and rigorous linguistic basis
for its application. Serious interpretation issues occur when theologians are not well acquainted
with basic linguistic concepts and empirical language data. It is crucial for bible scholars, for
instance, to understand lexical and semantic concepts that are related to words and their
properties apart from context and in context. The most important matter is that natural human
communication occurs at the utterance or discourse level, and not at word or sentence level
where some theologians presume to happen. States Cruse:
We do not communicate with isolated words; words are not the bearers of messages [emphasis added];
they do not, of themselves, ‘make sense’; they cannot, taken singly, be true or false, beautiful, appropriate,
paradoxical, or original. A linguistic item must in general have at least the complexity of a simple
sentence to show such properties [emphasis added]. Words contribute, via their own semantic properties,
to the meanings of more complex units, but individually they do not occasion our most vivid and direct
experiences in language. We communicate with utterances [emphasis added]; it seems reasonable to
suppose, therefore, that our intuitions concerning utterances will be sharper, clearer and more reliable than
those concerning individual words. Consequently, in this book arguments about the meaning of a word
will be made to rest, as far as possible, on facts concerning utterances which contain the words in
question [emphasis added].1

The fact that exegesis at word level indicates linguistic ignorance and incompetence and
not theological or exegetical expertise becomes obvious when one remembers that semantic
properties cannot be observed and confirmed in words outside context and below minimal
sentence level. For this reason Cruse will depend for word meaning “as far as possible, on facts
concerning utterance which contain the words in question,” and not on the lexicon.
Word Meaning and Interpretation
It is not uncommon for theologians to wager the propositional content of an entire chapter
or even a Bible book on the “meaning” of a word or even on the gender or morphological
inflexions a word carries. Such seems to be the case with the historicist interpretation of chapter
8 in the Book of Daniel, specifically verses 8 and 9. In this case, the Seventh-day Adventist Bible
Commentary [further, SDABC] theologians make the entire interpretation of the chapter
dependent on the gender discord between the Hebrew terms “them” in verse 8 and “horns,” in
verse 9 in total disregard of the propositional or semantic content of the discourse fragment that
constitutes chapter 8 in Daniel:
9. Out of one of them. In the Hebrew this phrase presents confusion of gender. The word for “them,” hem,
is masculine. This indicates that, grammatically, the antecedent is “winds” (v. 8) and not “horns,” since
“winds” may be either masculine or feminine, but “horns,” only feminine. On the other hand the word for
“one,” achath, is feminine, suggesting “horns” as the antecedent. Achath could, of course, refer back to the
word for “winds,” which occurs most frequently in the feminine. But it is doubtful that the writer would
assign two different genders to the same noun in such close contextual relationship. To reach grammatical
 The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 2

agreement, either achath should be changed into a masculine, thus making the entire phrase refer clearly to
“winds,” or the word for “them” should be changed into a feminine, in which case the reference would be
ambiguous, since either “winds” or “horns” may be the antecedent. A number of Hebrew manuscripts have
the word for “them” in the feminine. If these manuscripts reflect the correct reading, the passage is still
ambiguous.

Commentators who interpret the “little horn” of v. 9 to refer to Rome have been at a loss to explain
satisfactorily how Rome could be said to arise out of one of the divisions of Alexander’s empire. If “them”
refers to “winds,” all difficulty vanishes. The passage then simply states that from one of the four points of
the compass would come another power. Rome came from the west. In the literal explanation of the
symbols of the vision Rome is said to arise “in the latter time of their kingdom” (v. 23), that is, the
“kingdom” of the four horns. However, v. 23 refers only to the time when the little horn would arise and
says nothing of the place of its rising, whereas v. 9 is concerned exclusively with its location . 2

Here, as in other theological articles and papers written to support conclusions that cannot
be established through the rigorous interpretation of the biblical text, word denotations or senses
are thought to define the propositional content of entire passages or books, as if Hebrew lexicons
and grammar textbooks could contains the solution to the text interpretation, and as if humans
were communicating with isolated words. More that ignorance in matters of general semantics
and pragmatics, the comments above also demonstrate ignorance and incompetence in Hebrew
language matters. The authors of the comments should know that the “confusion of gender” that
has become the basis for their incorrect interpretation that makes “wind” the antecedent to the
“horn” in Daniel 8 is a common phenomenon in the Hebrew Old Testament. Rendsburg
describes it as “gender neutralization” and shows that it is rather widespread in numerous Old
Testament books. This means that this grammatical phenomenon is not unique to Daniel and
cannot be invoked to support the Seventh-day Adventist [further, SDA] unbiblical interpretation
for the little horn in Daniel 8:

One of the main characteristics of spoken dialects throughout Semitic is gender neutralization. 1 This term
refers to the use of epicene [common gender] forms in grammatical categories where the standard dialect
employs separate masculine and feminine forms. The direction of gender neutralization is usually the
masculine forms supplanting the feminine ones, though the opposite drift2 can be noted. In spoken Hebrew
this is witnessed in the 2pl and 3pl independent pronouns, 2pl and 3pl pronominal suffixes, 2pl and 3pl
imperfect verbs, and plural imperative.3 The key to detecting these forms in the Bible will be an apparent
discord of gender, that is to say, where a masculine pronoun is used with a feminine antecedent or where a
masculine verb appears with a feminine subject.3

Word Meaning and the Context

Cruse insists that word usage in “grammatically appropriate contexts” depends on the
“semantic normality (and abnormality)” pattern that defines that language context, and also that
“every difference in the semantic normality profile between two items” should be understood as
“a difference of meaning” within “the full set of normality relations which a lexical item
contracts with all conceivable contexts.” State the linguist:

It is taken as axiomatic in this book that every aspect of the meaning of a word is reflected in a
characteristic pattern of semantic normality (and abnormality) in grammatically appropriate
contexts13 [emphasis added].That which is not mirrored in this way is not, for us, a question of meaning;
and, conversely, every difference in the semantic normality profile between two items betokens a
difference of meaning. The full set of normality relations which a lexical item contracts with all
conceivable contexts will be referred to as its contextual relations. We shall say, then, that the meaning of
 The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 3

a word is fully reflected in its contextual relations; in fact, we can go further, and say that, for present
purposes, the meaning of a word is constituted by its contextual relations. 14 4

His statements indicate that it could never be good exegesis to impose on a certain
context the lexical definition of a word in order to obtain the propositional content of a biblical
passage because lexicons contain no word “meaning,” and because words do not have meaning
outside their context. A word’s semantic properties or “meaning” cannot be defined outside the
contextual relations that word has with the context within which it has been embedded. Frege has
summarized the linguistic implications of Cruse’s statement into one sentence: “Only in the
context of a sentence do words have meaning [emphasis added].”5

Definition, Sense, and Word Usage

The use of a lexicon in order to obtain the “meaning” of a word included in a certain
context reveals ignorance in relation to a word’s semantic outside and inside a context and lack
of knowledge about certain lexical concepts that could make a fundamental difference in
interpretation such as the definition, sense, denotation, reference, and the usage of a word. The
lexicon can provide the exegete with a word’s definition and its denotation or sense[s], but not
with its semantic properties or “meaning” in the context or the word’s usage because as stated in
the paragraph above, words do not have meaning outside the contexts.

Trask refers to a word’s definition as “a statement which identifies the meaning of a term
in sufficient detail to allow a reader to decide exactly when than term may be applied to
something.”6 This description needs to be clarified with the addition that “it is nonsense to talk
about ‘defining words’ in the way most people do,” because a definition does not define a word
but its meaning,7 and “the conclusion, then, is that what a word definition defines is not the word,
but one if its senses”8 as is the case with the English word “bank” that has two main lexical
senses: 1. a piled-up mass or raising ground bordering a lake, river, or sea, and 2. an
establishment concerned esp. with the custody, loan, exchange, or issue of money, the extension
of credit, and the transmission of funds,9 and whose meanings in use will depend entirely on the
context in which the first or the second sense of the word “bank” is used.

Hudson states that a word’s sense is “the general concept that is always linked to it [the
word],” while about referent he notes that “whoever or whatever a word refers to is its referent
on that occasion of use.”10 Another term that must be considered is denotation, or conceptual
meaning. Trask describes it as “the most central part of the meaning of a word or other linguistic
object; that part of its meaning which is intrinsic to it and which is always present, independent
of context and free of associations.”11

Brown and Yule take time to summarize the terms discussed above and their relationship
to the meaning or usage of a word in context, as follows:
In the traditional approach, the term ‘reference’ is used, together with ‘sense’ to discuss lexical meaning.
The meaning of a lexical item, such as chicken, is partially determined by its sense, that is, the component
properties of ‘animate,’ ‘feathered,’ etc., and also determined by its reference, that is, the set of objects in
the world to which the expression can be correctly applied.
 The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 4

Lyons (1977:ch. 7) provides a detailed account of the background and issues involved in this distinction
and suggests that the term ‘reference’ is better replaced by the term ‘denotation’ in considerations of lexical
meaning. We shall follow his practice and say that, in discussions of lexical semantics, it may prove useful
to claim that a lexical item (strictly speaking, a lexeme) has sense (component properties of meaning) and
denotation (a set of objects to which it can correctly be applied). 12

From the above comments, it should be clear that a lexicon cannot provide an exegete
with the meaning of a word in a specific context, but only with the context-independent word
information. States Cruse, again: “An ordinary dictionary characterizes a lexical item in three
distinct, though intimately inter-connected ways: first, its form (graphic and phonological);
second, its grammatical function; and, third, its meaning (sense and denotation).”13 The lexicon
will not provide the exegete with meaning-in-use in a specific context because a word’s meaning
in context depends to a large degree on the context in which the word will be used. Frege makes
a word’s relationship with its context and the context’s extreme importance for the word’s usage
and meaning clear when he states that “Only in the context of a sentence do words have
meaning [emphasis added].”14
Cruse insists that empirical language studies must be based on “primary data, whose
factuality is not questioned,” whose fundamental source is the “productive output, spoken or
written of native users of the language,” and the “intuitive semantic judgments by native
speakers of linguistic materials of one kind or another.” These two sources would provide the
relevant linguistic information and establish text interpretation on a solid basis:
Any empirical study (a category to which lexical semantics, as outlined in this book, undoubtedly belongs),
must rest, at some point, on a body of primary data, whose factuality is not questioned, and which is not
subjected to further analysis. For a study of lexical semantics, there would seem to be two principal sources
of primary data; needless to say, the native language-user is central to both of them.

One source is the productive output, spoken or written, of native users of the language. Clearly much
insight into word meaning is to be gained by observing the ways in which words are strung together by
competent practitioners of a language…The second principal source of primary data on which a study of
lexical semantics can be based is furnished by intuitive semantic judgments by native speakers of linguistic
materials of one kind or another. 15

Chathak as “cut off” in Daniel 9:24

We now turn to the examination of some theological documents that claim reliable
evidence for the rendition of the Hebrew term chathak in Daniel 9:24 as “cut off” rather than
“determine.” The efforts to support such a rendition are justified from a historicist point of view
because an interpretation of Daniel that makes chapter 9 an appendix to chapter 8 and attempts
to validate the “2300 years prophecy” in Daniel 8:14 is contingent on that rendition. The usual
forms of “evidence” in support of the reading “cut off” for chathak come from lexicons and deal
with the root meaning or definition of the word chathak. It is a rather common practice for
exegetes when the need arises to understand what a word means in a context to rush to as many
lexicons as possible in the false belief that lexicons can help them discover the usage of the word
in that specific context.
This approach is due to the fact that most exegetes are not aware that lexicons can
provide only information that relates to the definition of a word, that is, denotation and sense,
but provide no contextual data about a word’s usage. This means that such exegetes do not
consider the distinction between lexical definition or sense of a word (which is context neutral),
 The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 5

and the word’s usage in a specific context, and assume that a word’s lexical definition or sense
has the same “meaning” as the meaning the word takes on through usage in the semantic network
within which it is located. All these “word studies” that depend on lexicons at most muddle the
waters instead of bringing clarification to the question about a word’s meaning in a certain
context.
Historicists Arguments for “cut off’
Uriah Smith
Most historicist books and articles that favor the rendition of chathak as “cut off” rather
than “determine,” come from known Seventh-day Adventist [further, SDA] theologians such as
Smith, Ellen G. White, Doukhan, and Shea, and summarize the SDA position on the issue. The
arguments presented are based on lexicons. States Smith:
Proof may be called for that the word rendered determined signifies to cut off. An abundance can be given.
The Hebrew word thus translated is [Hebrew text not included] nehhtak. This word Gesenius, in his
Hebrew Lexicon, defines as follows: “Properly, to cut off; tropically [sic!], to divide; and so to determine,
to decree.” In the Chaldoe-Rabbinic Dictionary of Stockius, the word nehhtak is thus defined: “Scidit,
abscidit, conscidit, inscidit, exscidit – to cut, to cut away, to cut to pieces, to cut or engrave, to cut off.”
Mercerus in his Thesaurus furnishes a specimen of Rabbinical usage in the phrase, hhatikah shel basar, “a
piece of flesh,” or “a cut of flesh.” He translates the word as it occurs in Dan.9:24, by “praecisa est,” is cut
off. In the literal version of Arias Montanus, it is translated “decisa est,” is cut off; in the marginal reading
which is grammatically correct, it is rendered by the plural, “decisae sunt,” are cut off. In the Latin version
of Junius and Tremellius, nehhtak (the passive of hhathak) is rendered “decisae sunt,” are cut off. Again, in
Theodotion's Greek version of Daniel (which is the version used in the Vatican copy of the Septuagint, as
being the most faithful), it is rendered by [Greek text not included] (sunetmethesan), were cut off; and in
the Venetian copy by [Greek text not included] (tetmentai), have been cut. The idea of cutting off is
preserved in the Vulgate, where the phrase is “abbreviatae sunt,” are shortened.

Thus Chaldaic and Rabbinical authority, and that of the earliest versions, the Septuagint and Vulgate, give
the single signification of cutting off [emphasis added], to this verb.16

Smith’s statements indicate that all the “evidence” the pioneer Adventist offers for the
rendition of the Hebrew term chathak as “to cut off,” instead of “determine” comes from some
Hebrew lexicons, non-contextual data about word’s definition, sense, or denotation, that has little
or nothing to do with the word’s usage in a specific context. Such unscientific arguments indicate
that the SDA pioneer is confused about “definition” and “usage.” His “evidence” does not help
with the meaning of the Hebrew word chathak in the context of Daniel 9:24 and is useless.

The examination of the first example Smith provides – the lexical definition of the word
chathak in the 1846 version of Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon seems to indicate that
with intent or without intent Smith has listed “selectively” the information there. He states: “The
Hebrew word thus translated is nehhtak. This word Gesenius, in his Hebrew Lexicon, defines as
follows: ‘Properly, to cut off; tropically, to divide; and so to determine, to decree.’” This seems
to be correct only in part. The full lexical entry is as follows:
Chathak properly TO CUT, TO DIVIDE, as in Ch. and Rab. (cogn. To the roots which begin with cts, ct,
cts) hence to decree, to determine.

NIPHAL pass. Dan. 9:24, “seventy weeks nihtak al amka are determined (and shall come) upon thy
people.” Thedor. and Gr. Venet. sinetmithesan tetmentai. LXX ekritesan.17
 The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 6

From the full entry for the word chathak in Gesenius’s lexicon it is hard to conclude that
the lexicon’s author subscribed to Smith’s conviction that chathak should be read “cut off.” It
seems that, instead, Genesius affirms that the word should be read to decree, to determine, and
refers directly to Dan. 9:24 to emphasize the translation to determine for chathak in that same
context for which Uriah Smith prefers the rendition “cut off.” After such flawed citation of a
source one wonders how much error or rather distortion could be found in the other “proofs”
Smith provides for his preferred rendition of the word in question.

The “proof” examples Uriah Smith presents in support for his interpretation of the word
chathak could be categorized in three groups: (1) definition, (2) usage, and (3) translations. For
the definition he cites Gesenius’s Lexicon and Stockius’s Chaldeo-Rabbinic Dictionary, for
usage he cites Mercerus’s Thesaurus, and for the translation he cites Mercerus,’s translation,
Arias Montanus’s translation, Junius’s, Tremelius’s, and Theodotius’s translations, that are
followed by the Venetian, Septuagint, and Vulgate translations. Smith ends his list of “proofs”
with the statement: “Thus Chaldaic and Rabbinical authority, and that of the earliest versions, the
Septuagint and Vulgate, give the single signification of cutting off to this verb,” which is not
entirely correct because the LXX translates the Hebrew chathak as ekritesan, listed in the
Newman Greek-English Dictionary as:

[UBS] krino judge, pass judgment on (midd. and pass. Often stand trial, go to law) condemn; decide,
determine, consider, regard, think; prefer18

Smith is convinced that all the scholars who have translated chathak as “determined” and
not “cut off” did so because the connection between Daniel 8 and Daniel 9 was not evident to
them. He states:

Why, then, it may be asked, did our translators render the word determined, when it so obviously means cut
off? The answer is, They doubtless overlooked the connection between the eighth and ninth chapters
[emphasis added], and considering it improper to render it cut off, when nothing was given from which the
seventy weeks could be cut off, they gave the word its tropical instead of its literal meaning.19

Translations are as reliable as the translators and cannot be presented as the ultimate
evidence for a preferred rendition of a word. If that were not so, the simple fact that no modern
Bible translation in the main word languages have favored the translation “cut off” to the
translation “determine” should be considered more than sufficient evidence that the reading “cut
off” for chathak does not rank even as the fourth option in the translation of Daniel 9:24. No
translation has even come close to the rendition of chathak as “cut off” instead of the most
common rendition as “determined” that seems prevalent among the current international
translations:

Eight English Bibles (GNV, KVJ, WEB, LXE, YLT, NKJ, RBW, and NLT) translate
chathak as “determined;” Ten English Bibles (DBY, DRA, ASV, JPS, ESV, NAB, NAS, NAU,
NIB, NIV, NJB, NRS, RSV, TNK, and BBE) translate chathak as “decreed;” One English Bible
(BBE), translates chathak as “fixed,” one (DBY) as “apportioned,” and one, (DRA), as
“shortened.” Four French Bibles (BFC, LSG, NEG, and TOB) translate chathak as “été fixée,”
one French Bible (DRB) translates chathak as “été déterminées,” and one French Bible (FBI)
translates chathak as “assignees.” Four German Bibles (EIN, ELB, ELO, and LUO) translate
 The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 7

chathak as “bestimmt,”one German Bible (LUT) as “verhängt,” and one German Bible (SCH) as
“verordnet.” Two Italian Bibles, (NRV and IEP) translate chathak as “sono fissate,” and one
(LND) as “sono stabilite;” The Romanian Bible (CNS) translates chathak as “au fost hotărîte.”
Four Spanish Bibles (R60, R95, RVA, and SRV) translate chathak as “determinadas,” and one
(LBA) as “decretadas.”20

chathak Translation Bible Version

determined GNV, KVJ, WEB, LXE, YLT, NKJ, RBW, NLT (8)
DBY, DRA, ASV, JPS, ESV, NAB, NAS, NAU, NIB, NIV, NJB,
decreed NRS, RSV, TNK, BBE (15)
fixed BBE (1)
apportioned DBY (1)
shortened DRA (1)
été fixée BFC, LSG, NEG, TOB (4)
été déterminées DRB (1)
assignees FBI (1)
bestimmt EIN, ELB, ELO, LUO (4)
verhängt LUT (1)
verordnet SCH (1)
sono fissate NRV, IEP (2)
sono stabilite LND (1)
au fost hotărîte CNS (1)
determinadas R60, R95, RVA, SRV (4)
decretadas LBA (1)

From the renditions above, it seems quite obvious that all the translators of the listed
international versions have “doubtless overlooked the connection between the eighth and ninth
chapters,”21 because for them the preferred translation choice for the word chathak has been the
word “determined” or something rather close, and not “cut off.” How much should we depend on
their choice and their interpretation of Daniel 9:24? Well, the fact that so many translators have
preferred the rendition “determine” over “cut off” should perhaps make us look again at our
preferred interpretation and make sure that it is not us who have overlooked something. At least
this is what scholars often do. We need to ask ourselves: Are all these scholars less trained, less
knowledgeable, and less rigorous than we, historicists, are? That would be hard to believe, and
even harder to support with appropriate evidence. It would be a sign of intellectual arrogance and
condescendence towards all those men who have dedicated quite a lot of time and effort in the
translation of the Bible into those different languages.

Ellen G. White

The second group of arguments that support the rendition “to cut off” for the Hebrew
word chathak come from Ellen White. She states:

After bidding Daniel "understand the matter, and consider the vision," the very first words of the angel are:
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy Holy City." The word here translated
 The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 8

"determined" literally signifies "cut off."[emphasis added] Seventy weeks, representing 490 years, are
declared by the angel to be cut off, as specially pertaining to the Jews. But from what were they cut off? As
the 2300 days was the only period of time mentioned in chapter 8, it must be the period from which the
seventy weeks were cut off; the seventy weeks must therefore be a part of the 2300 days, and the two
periods must begin together. The seventy weeks were declared by the angel to date from the going forth of
the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. If the date of this commandment could be found, then the
starting point for the great period of the 2300 days would be ascertained. 22

Ellen White does not offer any empirical support for her statement that “the word here
translated ‘determined’ literally signifies ‘cut off,’’ but makes the claim as a recognized and
indisputable truth that should never be questioned or disputed. But is her claim true? What does
“literally signifies” mean, and what are the implications of this claim unsupported with
evidence? The Oxford English Dictionary [further, OED] defines “to signify” as “to be a sign or
symbol of; to represent, betoken, mean,” and the word seems to be misused in this context
because “to cut off,” in relation to time is not a literal expression, but a figure of speech written
in non-literal language. Time is not matter that can be cut. One cannot “cut” a time period, but
can allocate it for different purposes. Ellen G. White’s support for the reading of the word
cchathak as “cut off’ and not “determined” in Daniel 9:24 is therefore established on a logical
contradiction and not on empirical evidence. Her “prophetic gift” fails to operate in this case.
Jacques Doukhan
Doukhan is another SDA historicist who discusses the rendition of the Hebrew word
chathak in Daniel 9:24. He states:
If the prophecy of Dan 8 (hazon) points to a time of end, and if the prophecy of the 70 weeks indicates its
starting point, then the period of the 70 weeks—which does not reach the end—must be understood as a
smaller segment than the first one. In this way we may interpret the hapax legomenon htk as a cutting off, a
portion from something else. 11 Thus the period in Dan 9 is part of a whole. In this way the contextual data
must be taken into consideration here.23

The first thing we notice in the short quote above is that Doukhan’s statements about the
“meaning” of the word chathak are well qualified. He uses “if” two times, “then,” (as a logical
deduction) once, and “may” once again. These conditional terms indicate that his claims are
based in probabilities, assumptions, and guesses, and not in empirical evidence when he makes
his choice concerning the interpretation of the Hebrew word. This is what happens when
theologians depend on personal opinions and not on empirical evidence to support a speculative
theological perspective. If certain assumptive and fictional conditions are met, then the writer
“may interpret the hapax legomenon htk as a cutting off,” but not before those false assumptions
are accepted as factual. In support of his speculative claim that if those conditions are met the
Hebrew chathak should be read as “a cutting off,” Doukhan refers the readers to the following
note at the bottom of the page:

This meaning is supported by rabbinic literature [emphasis added] which uses the word in the niph’al
with the sense of “amputated” (cf. m. Hul. 4: 6). Moreover, most of the rabbinic usages of this root
[emphasis added] express this idea of amputation, related to slaughtering, etc. The denominative hatikah
from the verb means only piece, portion (cf. b. Hul. 31b, b. Her. 17b, etc.). See also the cognate Hebrew
words htr (Ezek 8: 8) and hth (Ps 52: 7), which contain the same connotation of cutting off, piercing, etc.

In cognate languages, the situation is not clear. Akkadian attests chathakum, translated “entscheiden” in
AHW, s.v. “chathakum” 1: 335. Ugaritic attests the form htk in the sense of father and son (see C. H.
 The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 9

Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook [Rome, 1965], s.v. “htk,” p. 399, no. 911). In Arabic, we find the most
interesting witness in connection with our concern: chathak “to walk fast, with short steps; to cut off,
scrape or shave off; emaciated, slender” (see W. Lane, ed., Arabic-English Lexicon [New. York, 1956], s.v.
"chathak," bk. 1, pt. 2, p. 510, col. 3).24

The supportive “evidence” Doukhan suggests for the historicist rendition “cut off” rather
than “determined” comes from the Hebrew word’s usage in the rabbinic literature and in some
cognate languages. These examples indicate that some words derived from the root htk are used
in certain contexts to mean “amputated,” “piece,” “portion,” “cut off,” “pierce,” etc. What word
definition would be most appropriate for the context in Daniel 9:24? “Amputate,” “pierce,”
“piece,” or “portion”? And how could the SDA historicist make an informed decision about the
word’s appropriate usage in Daniel 9:24 when all he has done is to examine how the Hebrew
word has been used in other and different contexts when the meaning of a word is to a large
degree determined by its specific context? It becomes more than obvious that Doukhan’s usage
examples are not adequate for a decision about the proper translation of the word chathak in
Daniel 9:24 and cannot be considered appropriate evidence that would support his speculative
position.
William H. Shea

Shea is another SDA historicist that presents “evidence” in DARCOM volume 3 that
claims to support the rendition “cut off” instead of “determine” for the Hebrew word chathak,
and his arguments are also based on the word’s root definition or sense. States Shea:

4. The verb “cut off,” The verb used by Gabriel in his first statement about the 70 weeks is a passive
(Niphal) form of the root chathak (“seventy weeks are determined upon thy people”). This root means
either “to cut off” or “to determine, decree.” Because this is the only passage in the OT where the word
occurs, its meaning here has been disputed.

The meaning of “determine, decree” has been derived from Mishnaic Hebrew that dates a millennium
later than Daniel’s time [emphasis added]. However, even in Mishnaic writings the term was more
commonly used with the meaning of “cut off.”

It is a recognized principle of Semitic philology that the extended meanings of Semitic verbs develop from
concrete meanings in the direction of abstract concepts. Thus, it is sound to infer that the root meaning of
this word involved the concrete idea of cutting. The abstract ideas of determining or decreeing are the later
development from this root idea. In Daniel’s time, therefore, this word already meant “to cut.” Whether the
extended meaning of “decree, determine” had developed by then, cannot be determined at present due to a
lack of comparative evidence.

The only significant comparative material, from Ugaritiс Canaanite of the thirteenth century B.C., lends
some support to the idea that this root's basic verbal notion was that of cutting, not decreeing or
determining. Thus, these three lines of evidence—(1) root meaning over extended meaning, (2) the case of
a Ugaritic cognate, and (3) the predominant meaning in later Mishnaic sources—all favor (but do not fully
prove) that this verb should be translated “cut off” here. Its apparent meaning emphasizes the idea that the
70 weeks were understood to be cut off from the 2300 days mentioned in the preceding prophecy.

These two prophetic time periods of the 70 weeks and the 2300 days (chaps. 8-9) can be related directly.
They are linked by prophetic terminology (mar'eh), their locations in the literary structure of Daniel (the
juxtaposition of the time units), their start in the same historical period (Persia), and by the opening verb
used with the time period of the second prophecy (batak, “cut off”). Supplementary support for the
meaning of chathak can be derived from its location within this prophecy as follows: From a literary
 The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 10

viewpoint this word for “cut” (chathak) is balanced by another verb for “cut” (karat,) that occurs in verse
26a. The word used for “decree” in this prophecy (haras) in verses 26b, 27b is balanced by its homonym
“moat” (harus) in, verse 25c. Those interested in further information on the relations between chapters 8
and 9 may consult my more detailed study of this subject in The Sanctuary and the Atonement. 1325

In the quoted paragraphs Shea accepts that the Hebrew root chathak means either “to cut
off” or “to determine, decree,” that is, that the above root has two lexical definitions or senses,
although he does not use technical linguistic terms to refer to these lexical properties but talks
about “meaning.” He also states that because the word is a “hapax” [single occurrence] in the
Bible it would not be possible to compare text with text and establish what the word would
“mean” in a different context. What Shea misses in his claim is that even if the Hebrew word
chathak were used in other contexts with the meaning “cut off,” this would be irrelevant for a
valid conclusion about what the word would mean in Daniel 9:24 because contexts are different
and each context defines the meaning of a word in a unique way. The hermeneutical approach
based on word comparison is an outdated, imprecise, and unscientific method that often results
text misinterpretation. The only sure approach towards the understanding of the meaning of the
word chathak in Daniel 9:24 is the examination of the word’s immediate and specific context.

As for the “meanings” of chathak “derived from Mishnaic Hebrew that dates a
millennium later than Daniel’s time,” the problem with such a comparison is the introduction of
the language change variable into the interpretation. There can be no argument that all languages
change with time, and the words change with them. We must, then, ask: How similar and
different are Daniel’s Hebrew and the Mishnaic Hebrew considering that the second is a
millennium older? A look into the lexical changes that have occurred in the English language
could give us an idea about how dangerous it is to compare word definitions so far apart in a
language. States Campbell concerning the semantic or lexical change that has occurred in the
English language with the word “cupboard” between Middle English and Modern English
through word generalization or extension:

In semantic changes involving widening, the range of meanings of a word increases so that the word can be
used in more contexts than were appropriate for it before the change. Changes from more concrete to more
abstract meaning fits here…

(3) Cupboard. In Middle English times [late 12th and the late 15th century], cupboard meant “a table”
[“board”) upon which cups and other vessels were placed, a piece of furniture to display plates, a
sideboard,” whose meaning then became ‘a closet or cabinet with shelves for keeping cups and dishes,’ and
finally in America it changed to mean any ‘small storage cabinet.’ In parts of Canada, cupboard has been
extended to mean also what others call a ‘’wardrobe’ or ‘clothes closet.’26

Shea also recognizes that “the abstract ideas of determining or decreeing are the later
development from this root [“cut off’] idea. In Daniel's time, therefore, this word already meant
‘to cut.’ Whether the extended meaning of ‘decree, determine’ had developed by then, cannot be
determined at present due to a lack of comparative evidence,”27 and could be at most speculated
or assumed. He then introduces more speculative and unreliable “evidence,” the cognates, and
states that, “The only significant comparative material, from Ugaritiс Canaanite of the thirteenth
century B.C., lends some support [emphasis added] to the idea that this root’s basic verbal
notion was that of cutting, not decreeing or determining.”28 He forgets that cognate comparative
work should be approached with caution because cognates are often unreliable as comparative
 The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 11

linguistic material. States Campbell about some cognates that appear dependable at first sight
and then confuse and embarrass the language learners:

Those who learn other languages often ask how true cognates can come to have such different meanings in
related languages, as in the English-German cognates town/Zaun ‘fence’, timber/Zimmer ‘room,’ bone/Bein
‘leg,’ write/reissen ‘to tear, rip.’ They ask why the seemingly innocent French word such as baiser, which
the dictionary says means ‘to kiss’ has changed its meaning to ‘to copulate’ with no warning to save the
unsuspecting language learner from embarrassment.29

The sum of Shea’s investigation on the verb chathak is contained in one paragraph that
brings together what the SDA historicist believes to be undeniable evidence that the Hebrew verb
chathak should rendered “cut off” and not “determined” in Daniel 9:24:

Thus, these three lines of evidence—(1) root meaning over extended meaning, (2) the case of a Ugaritic
cognate, and (3) the predominant meaning in later Mishnaic sources—all favor (but do not fully prove) that
this verb should be translated "cut off here. Its apparent meaning emphasizes the idea that the 70 weeks
were understood to be cut off from the 2300 days mentioned in the preceding prophecy. 30

The main problems with these “lines of evidence” have been described in previous
comments in this paper, but are repeated again below:

(1) The lexicon can provide the exegete at most with a word’s lexical definition or sense. This
definition or sense is context independent and does not define the word’s “meaning.” The word’s
meaning results from its usage, which is the word’s interaction with the specific context in which
the word is embedded. It is inaccurate and inexpert to equate a word’s definition or sense with
its meaning in context, or usage, because there is no word meaning without context.

(2) Comparisons between words in different contexts are unreliable and cannot constitute
“proof” for or against a certain usage because unlike the word’s definition or sense that are
context independent the word’s meaning or usage depends on the context and cannot be
established without the context within which the word has been embedded. All contexts are
different. Context comparison is always an approximation even when those contexts have
developed the same topic.

(3) The Mishnaic sources are written in a Hebrew language one thousand years older than the
Hebrew in which the book of Daniel was written. Languages change, and words change with
them. One or two examples of usage that seems to fit the “meaning” of chathak in Daniel 9
context are not reliable confirmation in favor of a preferred meaning or usage of a word.

The SDABC Authors

The next arguments in favor of the reading “to cut off” instead of “to determine” come
from the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary [further, SDABC] volume 4 that includes
comments on the word chathak in Daniel 9:24. State the SDABC authors:

Are determined. Heb. chathak, a word occurring only here in the Bible. It occurs in post-Biblical Hebrew
with the meaning “to cut,” “to cut off,” “to determine,” “to decree.” The LXX has krino, “to decide,” “to
judge,” etc. Theodotion’s version has suntemno, “to shorten,” “to abbreviate,” etc., which meaning is
reflected in the Vulgate reading abbreviare. The exact shade of meaning here intended must be determined
 The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 12

from the context. In view of the fact that ch. 9 is an exposition of the unexplained portion of the vision of
ch. 8 (see on ch. 9:3, 21–23), and inasmuch as the unexplained portion had to do with the 2300 days, it is
logical to conclude that the 70 weeks, or 490 years, were to be “cut off” from that longer period.
Furthermore, in the absence of contrary evidence, it may be assumed that the 70 weeks would be cut off
from the beginning of that period. Viewed in the light of these observations, the translation of chathak as
“to cut” seems singularly appropriate. In so far as the 490 years were especially assigned to the Jews with
respect to their role as God’s chosen people, the translations “determine” and “decree” are also appropriate
to the context.31

The arguments the SDABC authors advance to support the rendition “cut off” rather than
“determined” for the word chathak are similar to those Smith, Ellen White, Doukhan, and Shea
have proposed, and are based on a few unconfirmed historicist assumptions. These assumptions
are that (1) “ch. 9 is an exposition of the unexplained portion of the vision of ch. 8 (see on ch.
9:3, 21–23),” that (2) “the unexplained portion had to do with the 2300 days,” and that (3) “the
70 weeks, or 490 years, were to be “cut off” from that longer period. The facts, though, do not
support this historicist perspective. Daniel 9 is not an appendix to Daniel 9, and the “70 week”
prophecy is not part of an assumed “2300 year” prophetic time period. It would be better to state
that the SDA historicist interpretation for Daniel demands the connection between chapters 8 and
9 in order to reach certain pre-established conclusions, rather than to say that the text exegesis
provides incontrovertible evidence in favor of the connection between Daniel 8 and 9. There is
good “contrary evidence” that indicates that Daniel 8 and Daniel 9 are distinct and discrete
chapters in the Book of Daniel and that their connection is the natural association between the
chapters of the same book indicated through the coherence and cohesion expected from the text
or discourse of a book written on a unified theme.

Adventists Believe

The last proposed support in favor of the reading “cut off” for chathak included in this
paper is the one in the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe. The writers of this book state that:

The seventy weeks, or 490 years, were “'determined,” or “decreed” (RSV, NASB, NIV), for the Jews and
Jerusalem (Dan. 9:24). The underlying Hebrew verb is chathak. Although this verb is used only once in the
Scriptures, its meaning can be understood from other Hebrew sources.40 The well-known Hebrew-English
dictionary by Gesenius states that properly it means “to cut” or “to divide.”41 32432

The book’s authors then point to the footnotes on the page and suggest that more support
evidence for the SDA historicist proposed reading is available there:

40Analysis of Hebrew writings such as the Mishnah reveals that although chathak can mean “determine,”
the more common meaning has “to do with the idea of cutting”(Shea, “The relationship Between the
Prophecies of Daniel 8 and Daniel 9,” in Sanctuary and Atonement, p. 242).[back] [top]

41Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scripture, trans. Samuel P. Tregelles
(Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, reprint ed., 1950), p. 314.[back] [top]33

The facts that seem to surfaces in these paragraphs are either language ignorance and
incompetence or utter deception. The statements in the text and in the footnotes are falsifications
of the facts concerning possible corroborative support for the reading of chathak as “cut off”
from the cited sources. Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon defines chathak as shown
below:
 The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 13

Chathak properly TO CUT, TO DIVIDE, as in Ch. and Rab. (cogn. To the roots which begin with cts, ct,
cts) hence to decree, to determine.

NIPHAL pass. Dan. 9:24, “seventy weeks nihtak al amka are determined (and shall come) upon thy
people.” Thedor. and Gr. Venet. sinetmithesan tetmentai. LXX ekritesan. 34

From the complete entry of the word chathak in Gesenius’s lexicon it is hard to conclude
that the German linguist subscribed to the Seventh-day Adventist Believe claim that chathak
should be read “cut off.” The facts seem to be on the opposite side. Genesius states twice in his
lexicon that the word chathak should be read to decree, to determine, and then translates chathak
in Daniel 9:24 as “to determine” in order to emphasize his position on the meaning of the word
chathak in that context. To twist what Genesius states in his lexicon in order to mean the
opposite of what he affirmed does not suggest academic honesty or good scholarship. While it is
clear that, as the footnote [40] states, “analysis of Hebrew writings such as the Mishnah reveals
that although chathak can mean ‘determine,’ the more common meaning has ‘to do with the idea
of cutting,’” it is also evident that “the exact shade of meaning here intended must be determined
from the context,” which means that the Hebrew writings can offer at most tangential and
speculative arguments for the historicist selective rendition “cut off” rather than “determine.”

The historicist “evidence” provided above concerning the translation of the Hebrew word
chathak as “cut off” is plagued with a fundamental flaw – disregard of the importance of the
immediate context of a word when one attempts to understand its meaning in a certain Biblical
passage. While it is important to know the lexical definition of the word, it is even more
important to know the word’s usage, that is, how that word was used in context. Concerning the
word’s definition, it is good to know how the word is defined in different lexicons, and whether
it has one or more senses. Concerning the word’s usage, it is important to know how the word
has been used, and when. If the word has two senses, one needs to learn if the word has been
used in both senses, and which usage was more frequent – the one in the first sense, or the one
in the second sense. One also needs to find out when the word was used, past or current. If the
word was used in the past, one needs to know how far in the past was that usage and whether or
not the word has had the same meaning then and now. Did the word’s lexical meaning change?
Did the word’s usage change? In final instance, though, what truly matters is what the specific
word means in the context in which it is embedded.

No Meaning without Context

Let us consider, for instance, the word bank. If I read somewhere the following sentence,
“He left the car near the bank,” and I am not sure what the word “bank” means in that specific
sentence I can look the word up in a dictionary such as The Merriam Webster which has the
following entries for the word “bank:”
1
bank n 1: a piled-up mass (as of cloud or earth) 2: an undersea elevation 3: rising ground bordering a lake,
river, or sea 4: the sideways slope of a surface along a curve or of a vehicle as it rounds a curve.
2
bank n [ME.fr.MF or It: MF banque, fr. It. banca, lit.,bench] 1: an establishment concerned esp. with the
custory, loan, exchange, or issue or money, the extension of credit, and the transmission of funds 2:a stock
of or a place for holding something in reserve (a blood ~). 35
 The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 14

Now I have quite a lot of definition information about the word “bank,” but this does not
seem to make matters clearer concerning what the word means in the sentence. The sentence still
remains opaque. Perhaps it might help of I did an Internet search for the word “bank” in various
contexts? Not much! I learn that the word is used quite a lot in all senses, but more often, at the
present time, in the sense of financial institution. Still, I don’t know the word’s intended referent
or “the object in the world which is picked out by a noun phrase serving as a referring
expression.”36 It seems that looking for definitions in all the available dictionaries, or searching
for the word’s use in various contexts will lead to a dead end because all the collected
information will not provide me with the word’s referent, and only that information will help me
decode the sentence. It becomes clear that unless I am provided with an appropriate context that
will include the intended referent for the word “bank,” the sentence will remain opaque. I will
never be able to decode it and understand what the word “bank” was intended to mean in the
narrow context of that sentence.
The same situation seems to apply to the word chathak in Daniel 9:24. What matters in
the final instance is not the word’s definitions in various lexicons, or even the word’s usage in
the rabbinical literature or other Biblical or unbiblical sources, but how the word was used in the
Daniel 9:24 passage or what was its intended referent in that specific context, for the clarification
or disambiguation of that context’s meaning. It does not matter, in fact, how the word was used
in all the other contexts because all contexts are different and because various contexts have their
own specific referents. We need, then, to return to the immediate context of the word chathak if
we want to understand what the word means. No other approach will help in the clarification of
the intended meaning of the word and the disambiguation of its immediate context, and then also
the larger context of the chapter 9 in the book of Daniel.
This is even more so the case with chathak’s use in Daniel than with the usage of the
word “bank” because no current word usage appears to be available from Daniel’s time. All the
usage information that is available is from a later Hebrew, and there is little information that
allows us to decide how much the definition and the usage of the word chathak have changed
from Daniel’s time and until the time of those sources. Language changes, and word definitions
and uses change also with time. The information collected on chathak from later usage or the
word would be at most unreliable if not misleading for the understanding of the meaning of the
message in Daniel 9:24, and hardly useful.
Conclusion
The SDA historicist arguments that propose the English translation “cut off” rather than
“determine” for the Hebrew word chathak suffer from grave errors of interpretation. The claims
depend on the lexical root definitions or senses of the root htk and on the altered post-Biblical
Hebraic usage of the word, and grants insufficient consideration to the immediate context of the
word chathak in Daniel 9:24 in favor of a predetermined and speculative SDA historicist
interpretation of Daniel 8 and 9 that seems to be based in whole or in part on Ellen G. White’s
amateurish and invalid interpretation of Daniel 8 and 9.
There are numerous facts that dispute the SDA historicist claim that the Hebrew word
should be read as “cut off.” Among them are the linguistic evidence that the definition or sense
of a word is different from the meaning or usage of a word in context, the fact that the cognate
support is at best scarce if not misleading, and the fact that most is not all modern translations
 The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 15

have opted for the translation of chathak as “determine” instead of “cut off” because the
translators did not accept the historicist claim that chapters 8 and 9 in Daniel are merged or fused
and that the 70 weeks in Daniel 9:24 should be “cut off” from Daniel 8:14.
References
1
D. A. Cruse, Lexical Semantics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 9-10.
2
Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC: Review
and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version. Daniel 8:9.
3
Gary A. Rendsburg, Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew (New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental
Society, 1990). 35.
4
D. A. Cruse, Lexical Semantics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 15-16.
5
Gennaro Cherchia and Sally McConnell-Ginet, Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to
Semantics (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996), 62.
6
R. L. Trask, A Student’s Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (New York: Arnold, 1997), 65.
7
Richard Hudson, Word Meaning (New York: Routledge, 1995), 24.
8
Ibid., 25.
9
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, New edition (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster,
Incorporated, 1994).
10
Richard Hudson, Word Meaning (New York: Routledge, 1995), 7 box.
11
R. L. Trask, A Student’s Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (New York: Arnold, 1997),
50.
12
Gillian Brown and George Yule, Discourse Analysis (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1983), 204 -205.
13
D. A. Cruse, Lexical Semantics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 23.
14
Gennaro Cherchia and Sally McConnell-Ginet, Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to
Semantics (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996), 62.
15
D. A. Cruse, Lexical Semantics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 8-9.
16
Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association,
1949), 215-217.
17
Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scripture, trans. Samuel P.
Tregelles (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, reprint ed., 1950), 314.
18
Bushell, Michael S., and Michael D. Tan., BibleWorks 5.0.00 BibleWorks, 2002.
 The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 16

19
Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association,
1949), 217.
20
Geneva Bible (GNV, 1599): King James (KJV, 1611/1769); The Webster Bible (WEB, 1833);
LXX English Translation (LXE, Brenton, 1851); Young's Literal Translation (YLT, 1862/1898);
New King James Version (NKJ, 1982); Revised Webster Update (RWE, 1995) ; New Living
Translation (NLT, 1996); American Standard Version (ASV, 1901); Jewish Publication Society
OT (JPS, 1917); English Standard Version (ESV, 2001); The New American Bible (NAB, 1970);
New American Standard Bible with Codes (NAS, 1977); New American Standard Bible (NAU,
1995); New International Version (NIB, 1979); New International Version (NIV,1984); The
New Jerusalem Bible (NJB, 1985); New Revised Standard Version (NRS, 1989); The Bible in
Basic English (BBE, 1949/64); The Darby Bible (DBY, 1884/1890); The Douay-Rheims
American Edition (DRA, 1899); French Bible en français courant (BFC, 1997); French Louis
Segond (LSG, 1910); Nouvelle Edition Geneve (NEG, 1979); French Traduction Oecuménique
de la Bible (TOB, 1988); French Version Darby (1885); French Bible Jerusalem (FBJ, 2001);
Einheitsübersetzung (EIN, 1980) ; Revidierte Elberfelder (ELB, 1993) ; Unrevidierte Elberfelder
(ELO, 1905); Luther Bibel (LUO, 1912) ; Revidierte Lutherbibel (LUT, 1984); German
Schlachter Version (SCH, 1951); La Sacra Biblia Nuova Riveduta (NRV, 1994); NVB San Paolo
Edizione (IEP, 1995); La Nuova Diodati (LND, 1991) ; Romanian Bible (CNS, Cornilescu);
Spanish Reina-Valera Revised (R60,1960); Spanish Reina-Valera Update (R95, 1995); Reina-
Valera Actualizada (RVA, 1989) ; Reina-Valera (SRV, 1909) ; La Biblia de Las Americas
(LBA, 1986).
21
Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association,
1949), 217.
22
Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association,
1950), 326.
23
Jacques Doukhan, “The Seventy Weeks in Daniel 9: An Exegetical Study,” in Andrews
University Seminary Studies, volume XVII, number 1, Spring 1979, 6:1.
24
Ibid., 6:2.
25
William H. Shea, “The Prophecy of Daniel 9.24-27” in Daniel and Revelation Committee
Series volume 3: The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, Editor Frank B.
Holbrook, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association,1986), 107-108.
26
Lyle Campbell, Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,
2004), 254.
27
William H. Shea, “The Prophecy of Daniel 9.24-27” in Daniel and Revelation Committee
Series volume 3: The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, Editor Frank B.
Holbrook, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association,1986), 107-108.
 The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24 17

28
Ibid.
29
Lyle Campbell, Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,
2004), 253.
30
William H. Shea, “The Prophecy of Daniel 9.24-27” in Daniel and Revelation Committee
Series volume 3: The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, Editor Frank B.
Holbrook, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association,1986) , 107-108.
31
Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 at Daniel 9:21,
sub-point 5 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version.
32
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical
Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines second edition (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing
Association, 2005), 358-359.
33
Ibid.
34
Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scripture, trans. Samuel P.
Tregelles (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, reprint ed., 1950), 314.
35
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, New edition (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster,
Incorporated, 1994). Bank.
36
R. L. Trask, A Student’s Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (New York: Arnold, 1997),
185.