How do you know

[LoAmmi]

Hmmm... because Daniel was a fictional person or some other reason? It seems to me that prophets have messages for the people (e.g. "repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near"). I suppose Daniel was more of a seer than a prophet?

Daniel never spoke to the people. The word for prophet "navi" always has to do with speaking on behalf of the Lord to the people. Daniel was not in a position to do that so he isn't a prophet.

 

[roamer_1]

I think most people believe the Daniel 9 prophecy refers to persecution under Antiochus IV. Daniel 9 was written after these events had already happened ("ex eventu prophecy") to make it seem that it was all part of God's plan. Also the book of Daniel was probably composed by several different authors. Some parts are more modern than other parts and seem to have been written in different languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

@LoAmmi (wow. this is cool... didn't know how to ping ppl here... thx for that.)

To begin, like all of prophecy, there has to be a 'near fulfillment' event that proves the prophet, else the prophet would not be revered, and his work would be discarded. How does one speak to the distant future through a prophet else-wise? Some Christian eschatology (which I agree with) doesn't consider the prophecy fulfilled until it is precisely fulfilled.

Antiochus seems to be that near fulfillment - On the surface, Daniel 9 provides hallmarks that could be reckoned from the decree to build Jerusalem through to Antiochus... But it was not fulfilled precisely - Antiochus did not die as predicted, and Israel did not win. Thus the prophecy is incomplete. There's more to it. Antiochus was a type.

Now, Yeshua claimed Daniel as a prophet, and said plainly that the 'abomination that causes desolation' was still to come, and that when his followers saw that happening, they were to flee immediately. That is why few Christians were caught in the Destruction of Jerusalem. That makes two iterations of the prophecy - but is it perfectly fulfilled even yet? I would say no. I would say it's final fulfillment is yet to come. Titus was but another type.

As to the text itself, copies exist in two places - The LLX (Septuagint) and the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls), both at least contemporary with the events (c. 200BC), and referred to popularly in other writings from that time. Understand that 200 BC strains even Hebrew histories, as very little is extant prior to the rise of Pharisees about that time. The destruction of the Temple and the Library at Alexandria leave a gaping hole in near east history. That there are extant texts available at all speaks to their popularity - A popularity and distribution that would be highly unusual without age... The Qumran community having so many copies, considering their extremely insulated bend is a good example.

Early criticism is limited to Porphyry, whose only argument was similar to yours - a proto-platonist applying reason, assumes the work to be written after the event, simply because he does not believe in prophetic utterances. He gives no other reason.

Modern criticism fails to note Persian loan words, used correctly in the text, but totally destroyed by those translating the LXX - By the time of the LXX, Hebrew scholars in sophisticated Alexandria didn't have a clue what those words meant, but the original author did.

Another criticism is the use of Greek loan words. But those words were all musical instruments, and those musical instruments are now known to be referred to in Hebrew and Aramaic writings far before 200BC (those instruments do not offer ground in textual criticism)...

The Hebrew conforms to early style, contemporary with Ezekiel and others of that period, and the Aramaic seems older still.

And finally, the major criticism is the name of King Belshazzar. He has been absent from history - Even Herodotus made no mention of him in his lists of kings (and his is the penultimate source wrt ancient Media and Persia).

But recent finds in stone, and the very recent find of the Chronicles of Nebonidus tell the tale. Belshazzar, recipient of the 'writing on the wall', was indeed the son of Nebonidus, and coregent of the kingdom, with Nebonidus absent and retiring.

So to wit:

One would have to believe that the writer of Daniel was not only a brilliant and connected 'historian' to have so faithfully recorded the regional wars leading up to Antiochus, he would also have to know the three (and only three) Greek instruments with an history deep enough to have been present in Daniel's day by name, having a sure grip on arcane styles of both Hebrew and Aramaic, not to mention Persian so ancient and removed as to be wholly forgotten. And having all that, he would also have to have access to accurately use a name unremembered for centuries...

Kinda a lot to ask for, don't you think?

 

[LoAmmi]

Quick response:

Daniel isn't a prophet so any test of the office of prophet isn't needed.

On phone can't do detailed.

 

[roamer_1]

Quick response:

Daniel isn't a prophet so any test of the office of prophet isn't needed.

On phone can't do detailed.

Yeah, I gotta run too. I will address you fully soon.

 

[LoAmmi]

@LoAmmi (wow. this is cool... didn't know how to ping ppl here... thx for that.)

To begin, like all of prophecy, there has to be a 'near fulfillment' event that proves the prophet, else the prophet would not be revered, and his work would be discarded. How does one speak to the distant future through a prophet else-wise? Some Christian eschatology (which I agree with) doesn't consider the prophecy fulfilled until it is precisely fulfilled.

Antiochus seems to be that near fulfillment - On the surface, Daniel 9 provides hallmarks that could be reckoned from the decree to build Jerusalem through to Antiochus... But it was not fulfilled precisely - Antiochus did not die as predicted, and Israel did not win. Thus the prophecy is incomplete. There's more to it. Antiochus was a type.

Now, Yeshua claimed Daniel as a prophet, and said plainly that the 'abomination that causes desolation' was still to come, and that when his followers saw that happening, they were to flee immediately. That is why few Christians were caught in the Destruction of Jerusalem. That makes two iterations of the prophecy - but is it perfectly fulfilled even yet? I would say no. I would say it's final fulfillment is yet to come. Titus was but another type.

As to the text itself, copies exist in two places - The LLX (Septuagint) and the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls), both at least contemporary with the events (c. 200BC), and referred to popularly in other writings from that time. Understand that 200 BC strains even Hebrew histories, as very little is extant prior to the rise of Pharisees about that time. The destruction of the Temple and the Library at Alexandria leave a gaping hole in near east history. That there are extant texts available at all speaks to their popularity - A popularity and distribution that would be highly unusual without age... The Qumran community having so many copies, considering their extremely insulated bend is a good example.

Early criticism is limited to Porphyry, whose only argument was similar to yours - a proto-platonist applying reason, assumes the work to be written after the event, simply because he does not believe in prophetic utterances. He gives no other reason.

Modern criticism fails to note Persian loan words, used correctly in the text, but totally destroyed by those translating the LXX - By the time of the LXX, Hebrew scholars in sophisticated Alexandria didn't have a clue what those words meant, but the original author did.

Another criticism is the use of Greek loan words. But those words were all musical instruments, and those musical instruments are now known to be referred to in Hebrew and Aramaic writings far before 200BC (those instruments do not offer ground in textual criticism)...

The Hebrew conforms to early style, contemporary with Ezekiel and others of that period, and the Aramaic seems older still.

And finally, the major criticism is the name of King Belshazzar. He has been absent from history - Even Herodotus made no mention of him in his lists of kings (and his is the penultimate source wrt ancient Media and Persia).

But recent finds in stone, and the very recent find of the Chronicles of Nebonidus tell the tale. Belshazzar, recipient of the 'writing on the wall', was indeed the son of Nebonidus, and coregent of the kingdom, with Nebonidus absent and retiring.

So to wit:

One would have to believe that the writer of Daniel was not only a brilliant and connected 'historian' to have so faithfully recorded the regional wars leading up to Antiochus, he would also have to know the three (and only three) Greek instruments with an history deep enough to have been present in Daniel's day by name, having a sure grip on arcane styles of both Hebrew and Aramaic, not to mention Persian so ancient and removed as to be wholly forgotten. And having all that, he would also have to have access to accurately use a name unremembered for centuries...

Kinda a lot to ask for, don't you think?

My point isn't that it was written after, but rather it was written before in Babylon (going with Jewish tradition here) and that Daniel was asking about when the Second Temple would be built and Gabriel reveals the information to him that the Temple would be built and then reveals that the Jewish people are being given a certain period of time to get straight or the Temple and city would be destroyed. Not taken out for a bit, but utterly destroyed in the same way the First Temple was.

 

[roamer_1]

My point isn't that it was written after, but rather it was written before in Babylon (going with Jewish tradition here) and that Daniel was asking about when the Second Temple would be built and Gabriel reveals the information to him that the Temple would be built and then reveals that the Jewish people are being given a certain period of time to get straight or the Temple and city would be destroyed. Not taken out for a bit, but utterly destroyed in the same way the First Temple was.

I'm really going after this... I have to get outta here..

Forgive me my obtuseness, but what I think you are saying in the aggregate is this:

You agree with an ancient date for Daniel. That in the main (less perhaps Bel and the Dragon and Greek additions), the text is sturdy?

But you deny that Daniel is a prophet in the literal sense because the prophecy was delivered by a messenger, and in that, not from the mouth of Hashem?

Is that kinda where you are?

 

[LoAmmi]

I'm really going after this... I have to get outta here..

Forgive me my obtuseness, but what I think you are saying in the aggregate is this:

You agree with an ancient date for Daniel. That in the main (less perhaps Bel and the Dragon and Greek additions), the text is sturdy?

Depends on how we're discussing the text, to be honest. If we're talking religiously, I'll go with Jewish tradition. If we're talking scholarly, I'm more willing to entertain other possibilities because of the nature of the discussion.

But you deny that Daniel is a prophet in the literal sense because the prophecy was delivered by a messenger, and in that, not from the mouth of Hashem?

Is that kinda where you are?

Why is Daniel Not a Prophet?
I am often asked why the Book of Daniel is included in the Writings section of the Tanakh instead of theProphets section. Wasn't Daniel a prophet? Weren't his visions of the future true?

According to Judaism, Daniel is not one of the 55 prophets. His writings include visions of the future, which we believe to be true; however, his mission was not that of a prophet. His visions of the future were never intended to be proclaimed to the people; they were designed to be written down for future generations. Thus, they are Writings, not Prophecies, and are classified accordingly.

http://www.jewfaq.org/prophet.htm

 

[roamer_1]

Depends on how we're discussing the text, to be honest. If we're talking religiously, I'll go with Jewish tradition. If we're talking scholarly, I'm more willing to entertain other possibilities because of the nature of the discussion.

Excellent.

Why is Daniel Not a Prophet?
I am often asked why the Book of Daniel is included in the Writings section of the Tanakh instead of theProphets section. Wasn't Daniel a prophet? Weren't his visions of the future true?

According to Judaism, Daniel is not one of the 55 prophets. His writings include visions of the future, which we believe to be true; however, his mission was not that of a prophet. His visions of the future were never intended to be proclaimed to the people; they were designed to be written down for future generations. Thus, they are Writings, not Prophecies, and are classified accordingly.

http://www.jewfaq.org/prophet.htm

thanks for that... I will read it fully tonight... One final thought- Jonah/Jonas was a prophet to the nations... He is not recorded for his proclamations to the people... Is he likewise treated?

Thx... Seeya tonight.

 

[LoAmmi]

thanks for that... I will read it fully tonight... One final thought- Jonah/Jonas was a prophet to the nations... He is not recorded for his proclamations to the people... Is he likewise treated?

Thx... Seeya tonight.

Jonah did proclaim to the people though. Just because it wasn't the people of Israel doesn't disqualify him. He was obviously given a mission to go proclaim.

 

[cloudyday2]

(responding post #62)
@roamer_1 , thanks for all that detail. There were some interesting things I had never heard before (such as "near fulfillment").

However, I think you are making a fundamental mistake by speaking of a single author of Daniel. Most people believe that an editor created the book of Daniel from a variety of sources. The author writing in the 2nd century BCE collected some ancient folklore that was much older. Then the author added some "predictions" that had already been fulfilled by Alexander the Great, Antiochus, etc.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And in the words of GC Rankin, "During these forty-five long years, with their alternations of sunshine and shadow, daylight and darkness, success and failure, rejoicing and weeping, fears within and fightings without, I have never ceased to thank God for that autumnal day in the long ago when my name was registered in the Lamb's Book of Life."

That is a pretty awsome testimonial.

The Jewish/Hebrew books of OT Daniel and NT Revelation do mention that Book. Fascinating!

Daniel 12:1
`And at that time stand up doth Michael, the great head, who is standing up for the sons of thy people, and there hath been a time of distress, such as hath not been since there hath been a nation till that time,
and at that time do thy people escape, every one who is found written in the Scroll/Book.

Reve 3:5
The one-conquering thus shall be being clothed in white in garments and not no I shall be blotting-out/exaleiyw <1813> (5692) the name of him out of the Scroll/Book of the Life
and I shall be *avowing the name of him in view of the Father of Me and in view of the Messengers of Him.

Rev 21:27
And not no may be entering into Her every *common-thing and one doing an abomination and falsehood,
except those having been written in the Scroll/Book of the Life of the Lamb.


http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/lb/LB1.htm



*SNIP*


........ Now, what is meant by this term – THE BOOK OF THE LIFE OF THE LAMB?
The wise man said, "...of the making of many books there is no end..." (Eccl. 12:12).



The book stores are filled to overflowing today with all types of books dealing with every aspect of earthly life. Even in the church world there are books setting forth every kind of viewpoint relating to God, the Bible, doctrine, Christian experience, and church order.
However the subject material of most of these books largely contains a message of religious tradition and spiritual death......................

.

 

[fatboys]

Depends on how we're discussing the text, to be honest. If we're talking religiously, I'll go with Jewish tradition. If we're talking scholarly, I'm more willing to entertain other possibilities because of the nature of the discussion.


Why is Daniel Not a Prophet?
I am often asked why the Book of Daniel is included in the Writings section of the Tanakh instead of theProphets section. Wasn't Daniel a prophet? Weren't his visions of the future true?

According to Judaism, Daniel is not one of the 55 prophets. His writings include visions of the future, which we believe to be true; however, his mission was not that of a prophet. His visions of the future were never intended to be proclaimed to the people; they were designed to be written down for future generations. Thus, they are Writings, not Prophecies, and are classified accordingly.

http://www.jewfaq.org/prophet.htm

So a prophet is more than just a person who foresees? Are you getting this mainstream Christians?

 

[fatboys]

Well I was a christian till one day I guess I had a crisis of faith, realizing I had no proof of what I believed I started looking for proof. Hearing stories of spirits and demonic possession I thought I would look into that find one of those and I would have some proof. So I started looking into the paranormal and the occult. eventually I simply discovered that the emperor had no clothes.

When you say a crisis of faith would you care to share somethings about it to help us understand ?

 

[LoAmmi]

So a prophet is more than just a person who foresees? Are you getting this mainstream Christians?

As far as I'm aware, seeing the future wasn't even considered a requirement in Judaism. Just having a divine message for the people was enough to be considered a prophet. However, if a claimed prophet predicted something would happen and it didn't (outside of punishments if the people didn't straighten up, obviously) they were immediately a false prophet.

 

[fatboys]

I was impressed that, of all the world religions, the Christian "saga" or explanation, i.e. the Bible, is the only one that actually makes a case for divine revelation and a divine plan. And it, the Bible, has held up remarkably well to all the skeptics over the past 2000 years.

Some of the other "great" religions have merely "played off from" the information in the Bible when forming their own beliefs. This is a backhanded affirmation of the Christian religion IMHO. So because reason and experience convince me of a power greater than myself, I am directed towards the Bible and from that to the Christian religion as the embodiment of God's revelation.

Mind you I believe in Christ but why would you think that your faith which was by your own words built from what the bible says. How do you know that the bible is the word of God and how do you know you have interpretated the words correctly?

 

[fatboys]

I don't know. Were I not connected to Judaism through being a Jew, I probably would be an atheist. I've never experienced anything that would make me believe it is all true based upon nothing, but the survival of the Jewish people as a distinct people against all the odds convinces me that there is truth in our beliefs.

This is very interesting. In your whole life you have never experienced a spiritual event?

 

[LoAmmi]

This is very interesting. In your whole life you have never experienced a spiritual event?

Nope. Nothing that I can think of.

 

[Albion]

Mind you I believe in Christ but why would you think that your faith which was by your own words built from what the bible says. How do you know that the bible is the word of God and how do you know you have interpretated the words correctly?

I tried to say that I was persuaded that the Bible is God's revelation. There are a number of different considerations that go into that conclusion, but this is what formed my basic religious orientation.

Could I make some mistakes concerning certain of the contents? Sure, but it wouldn't likely lead me out of Christianity and into some other religion.

If we were to turn to what I think is a follow-up or secondary question (how do I know I have the interpretation correct?), I am primarily guided by the weight of the evidence, which is to say the consensus of everyone who has worked in the field, including historians, Bible scholars, linguists, and so on. But again, being wrong about some particular issue or other is a far different matter than the much more fundamental issues--being a follower of Christ and/or believing that the Bible is inspired.

 

[fatboys]

It is not too personal, but a lot of in depth answers might violate forum rules.

When the answers to my questions were “The Bible says so” without and knowledge of where or even if it say so said a lot to me. “Because” was another popular answer. The attempts to minimize the “Old Testament” or remove it all together (nailed to the cross) but running to it to cement and confirm the legitimacy of the New Testament always struck me as odd. The rush to baptize me and some historical problems turned me away from the LDS, but I did stick around for two years before I had enough. Islam was interesting, but not for me.

I'm glad you at least tested it. I think many times as teachers of the restored gospel that we tend to gloss over reality. Not saying that this is bad but after one makes a change in their life that their expectations can be let down if that makes sense. I think you were looking to not only trying to find the right answers but the continue spirituality. I remember when I was starting to become active in the church. I didn't really know much about the church because neither of my parents went to church. There is one thing I remember from when I was eight years old. That was when they placed their hands on my head and gave me the gift of the Holy Ghost. Most of the ones standing in the circle I didn't know not even the one giving me the gift. What I do remember is the sense of peace I felt. It was if I was in the arms of my mother when I got hurt and needed comforting. I felt a sense of security. I was safe only it was really a strong feeling that I remembered when I was 21 and trying to see if the church I belonged to was the true restored church. I remember the second time I opened the Book of Mormon and started to read passages from it. The first time I did it scared me because words begin to jump off the page like Jesus Christ and repent. I put the book back on the shelf and didn't open for another month or so. The second time I opened it the same words jumped off the page and then a sweet spirit that I hadn't felt for many years came over me. It was just like I was back when I was eight years old. It surrounded me and I felt safe once again.
Each person has their own experiences. No two are alike. Might be similar but is always personal yo that individual. Since that time I have had many other experiences.
I am glad that you are continuing to seek truth. Truth can come from many different places and religions. All truth is good and all good comes from God.

 

[fatboys]

Nope. Nothing that I can think of.

Maybe you have only experienced good and so you are use to all things good. So you could be experiencing spiritual things but are just use to it. Or you are so practical that spiritual things are not important?