“Bar enash is Aramaic for ben adam, son of man, (hu)man.”
But the writer of Daniel uses both ben and bar and adam and enash in the first 7 chapters. I throw that in for the next comment also.
“You do realize, I hope, that chapters 1 through 7 of Daniel were written in Chaldean (Aramaic) and not in Hebrew.”
I am aware of this theory but, as you expect, don’t buy into it.
Curiously, Protestants pick and choose from these variants,
Don’t we all!!
What verses?
Kosta: You do realize, I hope, that chapters 1 through 7 of Daniel were written in Chaldean (Aramaic) and not in Hebrew.” BD: I am aware of this theory but, as you expect, don’t buy into it.
LOL! The Jewish Encyclopedia writes:
It also mentions that there are scholars of every kind with all sorts of theories...but that's what we have and that's what we have to work with. Speculation is acedemic lexury.
Kosta: Curiously, Protestants pick and choose from these variants,
BD: Don’t we all!!
The Protestants are supposed to accept only the Hebrew Bible. But, then, they wouldn't be Protestants if they didn't protest their own rules.
It seems, however, that all the mumbo-jumbop variants of the supposedly pristine "word of God" seem to have no effect on your desire to comment, no matter how divergent they may be theologically.