# Daniel 12:1-2 and NASB - Dispensational?



## TomVols (Jan 11, 2010)

I've heard a couple of folks say that the NASB rendering of Daniel 12:1-2 is decidedly dispensational.


> Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.



How so? Doesn't seem terribly different from the ESV rendering:


> ]"At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.


What say you all?


----------



## TomVols (Jan 13, 2010)

no one has any thoughts on this?


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 13, 2010)

The problem may be with v.2. you only quoted v.1:



> 1"Now at that time (A)Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise And there will be a (B)time of distress (C)such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the (D)book, will be rescued.
> 
> 2"(E)Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, (F)these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.
> -Daniel 12:1-2 NASB



Now, if I had to guess, the problem may be with "these to everlasting life." This verse is used against premillennialism because it shows the righteous and the wicked rising at the same time, whereas premil posits that their resurrections are separated by 1000+ years. It may be that your friend is suggesting the "these to everlasting life" implies that only the righteous will rise at this time, which fits better with the premil view.

I'm totally guessing here, though.


----------



## Herald (Jan 13, 2010)

Much ado about nothing.


----------



## TomVols (Jan 16, 2010)

I still don't see any difference in v.2 among other translatiions.

Oh well. I have some premil friends who believe Gen 1:1 proves premil true


----------

