- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,713
- 11,549
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Yeah, I'm not sure from where Theo got his schema for Daniel
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ah, well, that settles it! Apex predators and flying saucers = God exists
Scolnic might be "reaching." Of course, it might not surprise you that I lean more toward what Lanier says in the latter part of the video as he interacts with Scolnic through the audience Q&A session. (In fact, I'd approach a lot of it in a more 'general' way like Dr. Mackie does in the 1st video.) I'm sure that I have a few differences of opinion with both Scolnic and Lanier in how I interpret Daniel overall, but in looking at what Scolnic says within the praxis of his non-christian Jewish view, I also notice that he admitted toward the end of the video that he hasn't studied in rabbinical fashion the first part of the book of Daniel, an admission that like the other Christians in the audience of the video I kind of find "odd." Perhaps his not having studied the whole book in full might also have played into his present view.Scolnic alludes to his difficulty with the problem by relating his anecdote about the Rabbinical arbitration of a dispute, i.e. he hints that there's isn't enough context available to him to resolve the two opposing interpretations of the the facts, in context the interpretation of the believers vs the secularists. His explanation about a "second Daniel" sounds to me as though he is reaching.
Yes, I agree with you that there are some nuances regarding biblical prophecy that are negotiable between the people of God and our Lord, that whether or not some "warning" becomes an actual consequence in our history depends upon how we respond to God. That is one 'form' of prophetic pronouncement. But there is also another form of prophetic pronouncement, one which isn't negotiable and is an actual foretelling of what will definitely happen in the future, regardless of our responses as the people of God, and I personally think that Daniel falls into this latter category.IMO Scolnic is limiting his options for interpretation of Daniel 11 to those of a believer when he should be looking at prophecy from a theological perspective. From this perspective that fact that Porphyry's argument has some merit isn't a serious problem, since theology doesn't require that the purpose of prophecy is to provide an accurate depiction of the future, but can be interpreted as a warning.
Yes, I get that there are some examples of unfulfilled prophesy, but let's try to focus more on Daniel here, if we can.For example, Jonah said: "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown", but when the people of Nineveh believed Elohim and acted on this belief, Elohim repented of the evil and didn't do it. Likewise Ezekiel 26 speaks of Nebuchadrezzar sacking Tyre, but it didn't happen.
Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:
Ezekiel 29:18
You could think of it as the tail of the serpent. Evidence of an powerful but unsuccessful adversary is evidence of a greater power.Ah, well, that settles it! Apex predators and flying saucers = God exists
The fact that something happened doesn't mean that it was inevitable. But like you say, Daniel clearly identifies ancient Rome, so it makes sense to look for an interpretation which is consistent with Rome acting as a continuation of the apex predator theme.Since we do have examples in Scripture where future pronouncements do happen, and since we can see someone like Josephus applying (I think correctly) Daniel's prophecy about a Terrible Fourth Beast to the identity and power of Ancient Rome in the 1st centuries B.C. and A.D., I think we have to also consider that some nuances of Jewish prophecy are presented as non-negotiable future events that are inevitable ...
The fact that something happened doesn't mean that it was inevitable. But like you say, Daniel clearly identifies ancient Rome, so it makes sense to look for an interpretation which is consistent with Rome acting as a continuation of the apex predator theme.
The man problem is that this can result in a sense of complacency regarding the dominion of the beast. Daniel describes an active power struggle between the beast and the saints, so it's reasonable to think that the destruction of the beast could be hastened by knowledge of the the themes and symbols of his book.I do think in the case of Daniel, the prophecies given are meant to foretell of an inevitable future onset of kingdoms and the ramifications of God's evaluations of those kingdoms that were yet to come.
The man problem is that this can result in a sense of complacency regarding the dominion of the beast. Daniel describes an active power struggle between the beast and the saints, so it's reasonable to think that the destruction of the beast could be hastened by knowledge of the the themes and symbols of his book.
I actually came to the same conclusion regarding the anachronism of chapter 11 as the rabbi for the same reasons a couple of years ago. Since then I have seen chapter 12 as paired with chapter 10. If you look at the beginning of chapter 12 it clearly requires a preceding chapter. So i'd like to hear some opinions on this. Read the bottom of Daniel 10 and when you get to the last verse start reading Daniel 12. Let me know if you think Daniel 12 makes more sense preceeded by 10 rather than 11.
Are you implying the entirety of Daniel 11 is a later insertion? Reading it as you suggested, I can see what you mean. It might just be that Daniel 11 is a unit, which is why it was made its own chapter when chapters and verses were added. Don't know of any extra-textual reason to think this, nor do I know if it is reflected in the original Hebrew/Aramaic text.I actually came to the same conclusion regarding the anachronism of chapter 11 as the rabbi for the same reasons a couple of years ago. Since then I have seen chapter 12 as paired with chapter 10. If you look at the beginning of chapter 12 it clearly requires a preceding chapter. So i'd like to hear some opinions on this. Read the bottom of Daniel 10 and when you get to the last verse start reading Daniel 12. Let me know if you think Daniel 12 makes more sense preceeded by 10 rather than 11.
That is what I'm thinking, that it's a stand alone 'book'. The whole collection of Daniel is not in chronological order if you follow the dates in the intros so this chapter may be inserted in the wrong place splitting 10 from 12.Are you implying the entirety of Daniel 11 is a later insertion? Reading it as you suggested, I can see what you mean. It might just be that Daniel 11 is a unit, which is why it was made its own chapter when chapters and verses were added. Don't know of any extra-textual reason to think this, nor do I know if it is reflected in the original Hebrew/Aramaic text.
I don't know, Sanoy. Tell me more about what your thinking is on all of this.
Now it's not a perfect seam, it feels like there is still a missing section between 10 and 12. Perhaps that is what Daniel seals until a time such as now when knowledge runs to and fro? It's like Gabriel is about to tell us what is in the book of truth, but then Daniel seals it from us as he is told and we miss what happens between Greece and the end times. Chapter 10 doesn't make sense as a stand alone chapter. The whole of Chapter 10 is about Daniel getting prepared to receive a message from Gabriel but Gabriel never gives it. Gabriel tells Daniel what he is going to reveal in verse 14 but then never tells Daniel, so there must be something after. So chapter 10 is a preface to something that is about to be revealed and chapter 12 is the continuation of a prior revelation. There has to be something in the middle which might be why they stuck 11 in there even though it doesn't fit.
- In Daniel 11 Daniel is strengthening the king with prophetic literature, which we find at the intro to the chapter. "And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him." But when we get to Daniel 12 we switch to apocalyptic literature as Daniel is not before the king but receiving instruction from God through Gabriel.
- In verse 1 of Chapter 12 it says "But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book" So the subject is now the Jewish people, not Darius, and that is the subject of chapter 10.
- Chapter 10 ends cryptically, saying "But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince." There is no mention of any book in Chapter 11, but chapter 12 does and says "But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”
- Chapter 12 appears to use the same characters, Gabriel who gives the message, as well as references to Michael as Chapter 10, but Chapter 11 doesn't use either of them.
Here is what the transition would look like without 11.
Again one having the appearance of a man touched me and strengthened me. 19And he said, “O man greatly loved, fear not, peace be with you; be strong and of good courage.” And as he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, “Let my lord speak, for you have strengthened me.” 20Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? But now I will return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I go out, behold, the prince of Greece will come. 21But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince.
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. 2And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above;a and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. 4But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”
they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice
The word sacrifice is in italics, indicating that it was added by the translators. The Hebrew word that is tranlated as daily is tamiyd, which means continual. While there are references to continual sacrifices, there is also reference to keeping the law continually, consistent with the key of David (Revelation 3:7).
So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever.
Psalms 119:44
The phrase "sanctuary of strength" is miqodesh ma`owz, which is suggestive of the "holy place" of Matthew 24, though of course the pollution would suggest an alternative, in this context probably of Tziyown.
[WARNING: The following Apologetic OP summary is ... looooooooooong! So, if you're the type who'd rather just do less than the scholarly thing, then maybe read the paragraph in bold black below and watch the first video, and maybe (just maybe?) you'll be good to go, even if you won't catch me then saying that I really think you're "in the know."]
If there's one book in the Bible that is often touted by Christians to count as possible evidence for the validity of both the Christian faith and for aspects of thought within Judaism, it's the book of Daniel.
Why should Daniel count as evidence to the truth of the Christian faith? Well, on the one hand, we see when reading the book of Daniel that it expresses a literary phenomenon known as "apocalyptic," a form of writing that usually contains futuristically inclined predictions, among other things, and in the case of Daniel, there are supposedly predictions within it that not only told ahead of time about what was to transpire in the history of empires of the ancient world, but hold possible relevance even for the times in which we live today.
Not surprisingly then, a number of Christians, along with some of their spiritual cousins in Judaism claim that Daniel "counts" as a form of evidence for their respective forms of religious faith. Why? Because, if we realize that no one can know the future other than God, and if the writer(s) of book of Daniel indeed received his prophecies by way of Divine revelation, this would seem to indicate to us that, however incredible it may seem, God may very well be involved in the message we find in the ancient pages of Daniel, and if this is the case, we thereby may infer that God is in some way active as well in, through, or around the workings of our world today as He has been ever since the time of Daniel and earlier.
But enter the non-christian philosopher known as Porphyry: a man of the 3rd century A.D. who essentially attempted to undermine the central support offered in the book of Daniel in one fell, philosophically abrasive swoop! By introducing the argument (still in use today) that the book of Daniel was essentially "made up" long after the supposed historical facts for which it is famously cited to have foretold, Porphyry delivered what he thought was a death-blow to the Christian religion. Needless to say, various early Christian commentators such as Augustine and Jerome, among a few dozen others, took up the gauntlet that Porphyry laid down in challenge regarding the prophetic claims found in the book of Daniel.
Below are two videos which I'm adding for initial contextual 'education' to engender deeper thought on the relevance (or for skeptics, the irrelevance) of the book of Daniel as a form of evidence for faith. The first video, by Dr. Tim Mackie, is only several minutes long, and it quickly explains the structure and the contents of the book of Daniel for those who might not yet be overly familiar with it, and he does so while leaving various conclusions about it open for further discussion among Christians.
However, for the sake of deeper discussion and hermeneutical consideration, and to directly challenge skeptics who like to use Porphyr's essential argument, I've also included a longer, 2nd video offered by the Lanier Theological Library, featuring the non-Christian but Jewish scholar, Rabbi Benjamin Scolnic in a talk he gave entitled, "The Book of Daniel and the Nature of Biblical Truth," a talk that was specifically geared to address the epistemological, historical, and/or apologetic issues that were prompted by Prophyry's arguments. Dr. Scolnic's talk, while informative about Porphyry, challenges both Christians and Skeptics to consider other possible hermeneutical ways to understand the structure of Daniel.
So, for those of you who want to also take up the gauntlet, join me as we explore and contend with Porphyry's skeptical arguments about the extent to which the book of Daniel can be seen as any kind of evidence (or set of multiple evidences) for the Christian (or Judaic) faiths...........................
Video 1 - Summary of the book of Daniel (by Dr. Tim Mackie)
Video 2 - Lecture by Rabbi Benjamin Scolnic "The Book of Daniel and the Nature of Biblical Truth"
No, not as far as I know of.
My thread has to do with the nature of the content of Daniel, and even though some of what is in Daniel does pertain to the "Son of Man" trope, I'm not focusing on Jesus so much as I am on the fulfillment of the prophecies about various political Beasts.
Are you saying that you think that Jesus was a false prophet?The point of Deuteronomy 18 is that a prophecy must come true within a prophet's own lifetime. The punishment of death for a false prophet absolutely necessitates this fact. Further, the purpose of a prophecy is merely to convince the people of Israel that the prophet truly speaks for Jehovah.
Recall that the people are terrified of personally witnessing Jehovah. So Jehovah and the people agreed that a mediator (a prophet) would relay messages from Jehovah to the people, and the "litmus test" for such a mediator was a prophecy that should come true. When it comes true, he's then free to speak on behalf of Jehovah.
Considering also that documents of this time costed somewhere around the modern price of a new car or new home (depending on the length of the document), and considering that multiple copies would be created over the centuries, it is comical to think that they would preserve the words of someone universally thought of as a false prophet.
If there's no necessity for a prophecy to come true in the prophet's lifetime, then there absolutely cannot be a punishment for false prophets. If there is no punishment for false prophets, absolutely anyone can say absolutely anything they like. I don't think it worked that way. Do you?
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?