Daniel 3:27

3:27 Once the satraps, prefects, governors, and ministers of the king had gathered around, they saw that those men were physically ¹  unharmed by the fire. ²  The hair of their heads was not singed, nor were their trousers damaged. Not even the smell of fire was to be found on them!

Daniel 8:24

8:24 His power will be great, but it will not be by his strength alone. He will cause terrible destruction. ³  He will be successful in what he undertakes. ⁴  He will destroy powerful people and the people of the holy ones. ⁵ 

Daniel 9:24

9:24 “Seventy weeks ⁶  have been determined

concerning your people and your holy city

to put an end to ⁷  rebellion,

to bring sin ⁸  to completion, ⁹ 

to atone for iniquity,

to bring in perpetual ¹⁰  righteousness,

to seal up ¹¹  the prophetic vision, ¹² 

and to anoint a most holy place. ¹³ 

Daniel 11:2

11:2 Now I will tell you the truth.

The Angel Gives a Message to Daniel

“Three ¹⁴  more kings will arise for Persia. Then a fourth ¹⁵  king will be unusually rich, ¹⁶  more so than all who preceded him. When he has amassed power through his riches, he will stir up everyone against ¹⁷  the kingdom of Greece.

Daniel 11:13

11:13 For the king of the north will again muster an army, one larger than before. At the end of some years he will advance with a huge army and enormous supplies.

[3:27]  ¹ tn Aram “in their bodies.”

[3:27]  ² tn Aram “the fire did not have power.”

[8:24]  ³ tn Heb “extraordinarily he will destroy.”

[8:24]  ⁴ tn Heb “he will succeed and act.”

[8:24]  ⁵ tn See the corresponding Aramaic expression in 7:27. If the “holy ones” are angels, then this probably refers to the angels as protectors of God’s people. One could translate, “people belonging to (i.e., protected by) the holy ones.” If the “holy ones” are God’s people, then this is an appositional construction, “the people who are the holy ones.” One could translate simply “holy people.” For examples of a plural appositional genitive after “people,” see 11:15, 32. Because either interpretation is possible, the translation has deliberately preserved the ambiguity of the Hebrew grammar here.

[9:24]  ⁶ tn Heb “sevens.” Elsewhere the term is used of a literal week (a period of seven days), cf. Gen 29:27-28; Exod 34:22; Lev 12:5; Num 28:26; Deut 16:9-10; 2 Chr 8:13; Jer 5:24; Dan 10:2-3. Gabriel unfolds the future as if it were a calendar of successive weeks. Most understand the reference here as periods of seventy “sevens” of years, or a total of 490 years.

[9:24]  ⁷ tc Or “to finish.” The present translation reads the Qere (from the root תָּמַם, tamam) with many witnesses. The Kethib has “to seal up” (from the root הָתַם, hatam), a confusion with a reference later in the verse to sealing up the vision.

[9:24]  ⁸ tc The present translation reads the Qere (singular), rather than the Kethib (plural).

[9:24]  ⁹ tn The Hebrew phrase לְכַלֵּא (lÿkhalle’) is apparently an alternative (metaplastic) spelling of the root כָּלָה (kalah, “to complete, finish”), rather than a form of כָּלָא (kala’, “to shut up, restrain”), as has sometimes been supposed.

[9:24]  ¹⁰ tn Or “everlasting.”

[9:24]  ¹¹ sn The act of sealing in the OT is a sign of authentication. Cf. 1 Kgs 21:8; Jer 32:10, 11, 44.

[9:24]  ¹² tn Heb “vision and prophecy.” The expression is a hendiadys.

[9:24]  ¹³ tn Or “the most holy place” (NASB, NLT); or “a most holy one”; or “the most holy one,” though the expression is used of places or objects elsewhere, not people.

[11:2]  ¹⁴ sn Perhaps these three more kings are Cambyses (ca. 530-522 B.C.), Pseudo-Smerdis (ca. 522 B.C.), and Darius I Hystaspes (ca. 522-486 B.C.).

[11:2]  ¹⁵ sn This fourth king is Xerxes I (ca. 486-465 B.C.). The following reference to one of his chiefs apparently has in view Seleucus Nicator.

[11:2]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “rich with great riches.”

[11:2]  ¹⁷ tn The text is difficult. The Hebrew has here אֶת (’et), the marker of a definite direct object. As it stands, this would suggest the meaning that “he will arouse everyone, that is, the kingdom of Greece.” The context, however, seems to suggest the idea that this Persian king will arouse in hostility against Greece the constituent elements of his own empire. This requires supplying the word “against,” which is not actually present in the Hebrew text.