Long as you agree with Jesus it is OK. Daniel the prophet, who was verified by Jesus is not up for grabs, or negotiable. No opinions needed. really, it is a done deal.Dad and Redleg,
You obviously have strong beliefs about the Book of Daniel and its place in Christian theology. You also have an impressive body of apologetics to support your position. Many Christians agree with you about it.
On the other hand, many do not agree with you about it, and your characterization of us as liars, slanderers and worse is vicious, offensive and entirely unwarranted.
Jesus did call Daniel a prophet and not a historian recording current events of his time. That does mean a lot in the internal history and should for Christians as it is the King of kings and Lord of lords making that statement.Long as you agree with Jesus it is OK. Daniel the prophet, who was verified by Jesus is not up for grabs, or negotiable.
It does but not in Daniel. You may want to examine Ezekiel, Isaiah and Jeremiah for that but not Daniel. He was taken in exile in the first sacking of Jerusalem.Well, look at this, you are absolutely right. The Bible accurately predicts the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem in 607-605BC!
That is based on manuscript fragments found not on the date of the autographica.Unfortunately, the Book of Daniel where the prophecy is made, was written around 167BC! Oh dear!
Indeed this as the opinion of skeptics dating back to the 19th century through the 20th century.It seems that this prophecy of yours was written about 430 years AFTER the events it prophesied! How very embarrassing! I mean, it wasn't included in the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets (which was closed around 200 BC) or the Wisdom of Sirach (a work dating from around 180 BC which drew on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel)! Sure sounds like those authors had no idea that the book of Daniel even existed. So, you have failed spectacularly here!
So? So the very history of all Western cultures (not just the Bible) was in the hands of Christian religious authorities since the fall of the Roman empire. Perhaps they corrupted purposely the text of the ancients?
Yet your appeal to ancient texts other than the Bible is your basis for an independent source. Again nuking ancient history.
Quite a few straw men there, but basically it's a weak argument. What you need are fragments of the Book of Daniel or mentions of it dating from before the Maccabean period.It does but not in Daniel. You may want to examine Ezekiel, Isaiah and Jeremiah for that but not Daniel. He was taken in exile in the first sacking of Jerusalem.
That is based on manuscript fragments found not on the date of the autographica.
Indeed this as the opinion of skeptics dating back to the 19th century through the 20th century.
However, after the Qumran discoveries (Daniel fragments found in caves 1-4) the scholarship has changed. Especially cave 4:
For those supporting the historical-critical date of the book of Daniel new issues are being raised. Since there is a manuscript of Daniel that supposedly dates within 50 years of the autograph, is there enough time for the supposed traditio-historical and redaction-critical developments allegedly needed for the growth of the book? Supporters of the Maccabean dating hypothesis of Daniel will be hard put to explain all of this in their reconstructions. To express it differently, do the early dates of the fragments from Cave 4 leave enough room for the developments, editorial and redactional as well as others, that are so often proposed (e.g., Koch 1986:20–24)? The verdict seems to be negative, and an earlier date for Daniel than the second century is unavoidable.
[...]
Evidently this is a complex picture. The newly published Daniel materials from Qumran appear to throw important new light on the issue of the original text of Daniel. We say this because there is great harmony between the MT and the Cave 4 finds of the book of Daniel. Thus it no longer seems permissible to dismiss the Hebrew-Aramaic text as unreliable.
We need to note the following:
1. When it comes to variants, the eight Dead Sea scroll Daniel manuscripts, for the most part, are very close to each other.
2. There is no significant abbreviation and no lengthy expansion in any of the manuscript fragments. “The text of Daniel in these [Cave 4] Daniel scrolls conforms closely to later Masoretic tradition; there are to be found, however, some rare variants which side with the Alexandrian Greek [Septuagint] against the MT and Theodotion” (Cross 1956:86).
3. These manuscript fragments do not contain any of the additions that are in all the Greek manuscripts, such as the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, and the Story of Susanna.
4. The change from Hebrew into Aramaic is preserved for Daniel 2:4b in 4QDana as it was previously in 1QDana. Thus two different manuscripts give evidence to this change. The change from Aramaic into Hebrew in Daniel 8:1 is clearly manifested in both 4QDana and 4QDanb, just as in the MT.
Based on the overwhelming conformity of these Qumran Daniel manuscripts with each other and with the MT, despite the few insignificant variants that agree with the Septuagint, it is evident that the MT is the well-preserved key text for the book of Daniel. An eclectic approach, using the Hebrew/Aramaic text, the Greek, and other versions as if they were all on the same level without giving priority to the Hebrew text is no longer supportable, if it ever was previously. The Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic text of the book of Daniel now has stronger support than at any other time in the history of the interpretation of the book of Daniel. (New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls)
Meaning the Qumran discoveries confirm the MT variant texts. The discoveries do show Daniel was in wide circulation in the 2nd century BC, which if the previous scholarship is correct would have made it the most popular OT book as there was little time from autograph to multiple manuscript copies. Which would be 40-50 years if believed. Only the NT Gospel of John can boast such a flash to bang dating.
Qumran discoveries also found Daniel among canonical OT books.
These doubts and uncertainties about the canonicity of Daniel among the Qumran people can now be laid aside for good. They have been based largely on the “roughly square proportions of the columns of 1QDana and because Pap6QDan is written on papyrus” (Ulrich 1987:19). But professor Ulrich now says,
From Cave 4 we now have overriding evidence on both points from manuscripts of books indisputably authoritative or ‘canonical,’ including Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, and Psalms.. .. However one uses in relation to Qumran the category of what is later explicitly termed ‘canonical,’ the book of Daniel was certainly in that category (Ulrich 1987:19).
Canonicity is supported also by the so called 4QFlorilegium, a fragment that employs the quotation formula “which written in the book of Daniel the prophet.” Such a formula is typical of quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran. It is similar also to Matthew 24:15, where Jesus refers to “Daniel the prophet.”
Inasmuch as Daniel was already canonical at Qumran at about 100 BC, how could it have become so quickly canonical if it had just been produced a mere half century before? While we do not know exactly how long it took for books to become canonical, it may be surmised that insofar as Daniel was reckoned to belong to the canonical books, it had a longer existence than a mere five decades, as the Maccabean dating hypothesis suggests. Both the canonical status and the fact that Daniel was considered a “prophet” speak for the antiquity of the book of Daniel. An existence of a mere five decades between the production of a Biblical book in its final form and canonization does not seem reasonable.
Thus the canonical acceptance of the book of Daniel at Qumran suggests an earlier origin of the book than the second century BC. In 1969, based on the evidence available at that time regarding the Qumran Daniel texts, Roland K. Harrison had already concluded that the second century dating of the book of Daniel was “absolutely precluded by the evidence from Qumran, partly because there are no indications whatever that the sectaries compiled any of the Biblical manuscripts recovered from the site, and partly because there would, in the latter event, have been insufficient time for Maccabean compositions to be circulated, venerated, and accepted as canonical Scripture by a Maccabean sect” (Harrison 1969:1127).
Subsequent to this, he stated that based on the Qumran manuscripts, “there can no longer be any possible reason for considering the book as a Maccabean product” (Harrison 1979:862). The most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts confirm this conclusion.
Daniel. (New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls)
Are you sure you're not a Dispensationalist? That certainly would explain a lot of your strange ideas about the Bible.
Jesus validated Daniel as a prophet and authentic. Frankly no one cares about any irrelevant dissenting baseless opinions about him either. You would need to present your case.
Daniels' fulfilled prophesies of Babylon, Medo Persia, Greece and Rome are predictions that come from a creation believer. All prophesy in the bible also does for that matter.
One of my favorites is recounted in Matt 21:1-7 where Jesus basically says to his disciples, "Wait! It says in the OT that if I'm the Messiah I'm supposed to ride into town on a donkey. Quick, go get me a donkey."Just so that you will know, Bible scholars suggest there are more than 300 prophetic Scriptures completed in the life of Jesus.
Yes, the captivity in Babylon, though in stages was a singular event.
No. Israel was destroyed as a nation and many were taken captive. The is precise, a certain nation will take them captive..for a certain time. Now if it said, a nation across the sea at some point will be destroyed and many taken into slavery..that would be vague. To tell a specific nation at a certain time, for specific reason will be destroyed and into captivity for 70 years to a specific nation, under a specific king is anything but vague.
Jesus guaranteed it. Signed, sealed and delivered.
No, that is impossible. Where He said standing here, it was back in Matthew 16:28 and it was talking of the second death which is in the hereafter.
The verse in Matt 24 talked of the generation that saw certain things start to happen...that could not be the generation living then, as those things still have not happened! Elementary.
Jesus said He had other sheep also, not of that fold. His words were NOT just for the hundreds of folks in His day on earth. They were also for the billions to come later.
The stars falling from the sky places it in the future tense to anyone that knows Scripture and prophesy. One should approach the mystical, magical, awe inspiring, eternal, deep, God given word of God in Scripture from a perspective of humbly asking and seeking. Not from a perspective of trying to make the Almighty look silly.
One of my favorites is recounted in Matt 21:1-7 where Jesus basically says to his disciples, "Wait! It says in the OT that if I'm the Messiah I'm supposed to ride into town on a donkey. Quick, go get me a donkey."
Who here is trying to "destroy" the book? All we're trying to do is understand it better--who wrote it, when, why, etc.People who reject the supernatural verbal inspiration of the Bible as the nfallible dictation of the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit to holy men, must somehow destroy this book if they hope to disprove the Word of God a the Word of God.
Who here is trying to "destroy" the book? All we're trying to do is understand it better--who wrote it, when, why, etc.
No, I was just being snarky about your understanding of prophecy. Jesus comments in Matt 21, even if delivered in the off-hand way I paraphrased them, discredit neither Jesus himself nor Zechariah.Oh, I am sorry for the misunderstanding my friend.
When I read your comment of.............
"One of my favorites is recounted in Matt 21:1-7 where Jesus basically says to his disciples, "Wait! It says in the OT that if I'm the Messiah I'm supposed to ride into town on a donkey. Quick, go get me a donkey."
Those words sounded like sarcasm to me and that you were trying to discredit the Words of the Lord Jesus.
I guess I did not read them as you intended.
Right. I suspect God told the donkey to be ready, just as He told the fish to be near the boat to be caught. He was Lord over nature.Oh, I am sorry for the misunderstanding my friend.
When I read your comment of.............
"One of my favorites is recounted in Matt 21:1-7 where Jesus basically says to his disciples, "Wait! It says in the OT that if I'm the Messiah I'm supposed to ride into town on a donkey. Quick, go get me a donkey."
Those words sounded like sarcasm to me and that you were trying to discredit the Words of the Lord Jesus.
I guess I did not read them as you intended.
Point out the straw men.Quite a few straw men there, but basically it's a weak argument. What you need are fragments of the Book of Daniel or mentions of it dating from before the Maccabean period.
You mean Harvard book review from 6th century BC? This is once again applying a different standard to Biblical works of antiquity not applied to others.What you need are fragments of the Book of Daniel or mentions of it dating from before the Maccabean period.
I said no such thing.Did they also fake all the archeological finds that corroborate the stories?
Show the non European and near east source. The near east was dominated by Byzantine Eastern Orthodoxy before the Muslim dynasties and the West dominated by Catholic Christian monarchies.And let's be a bit serious here: old-europe christian scribes making copies of ancient manuscripts, are not our only source of intel concerning ancient history.
We know this from roughly 6 manuscripts dating back to 1000 AD almost one thousand years after the events. And again an internal triumvirate struggle for power is still Roman and not an independent source.No. And I already explained how that is not true with my example of we can know (and thus NOT just rely on belief of a single potentially biased source) that a general named Julius Ceasar went on a conquest ca
Show the various independent sources which are not Roman and the manuscript history.This part of ancient history is corroborated by several independend lines of evidence. Not all of which is text by some author.
Actually many of my Reformed brethren have opined on the Messianic prophecies in Daniel. They are not Dispensationalists:Are you sure you're not a Dispensationalist? That certainly would explain a lot of your strange ideas about the Bible.
You call into question Matt 21:1-7 as something the author just threw in there?One of my favorites is recounted in Matt 21:1-7 where Jesus basically says to his disciples, "Wait! It says in the OT that if I'm the Messiah I'm supposed to ride into town on a donkey. Quick, go get me a donkey."
Right. I suspect God told the donkey to be ready, just as He told the fish to be near the boat to be caught. He was Lord over nature.
No, I was just being snarky about your understanding of prophecy. Jesus comments in Matt 21, even if delivered in the off-hand way I paraphrased them, discredit neither Jesus himself nor Zechariah.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?