gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

"Out of one of them came another horn which grew exceedingly great"

It is very common to error in interpretation of texts due to information lost through translation. This is the case here.

In Hebrew words often have gender. The author of Daniel made it very clear to Hebrew readers that he was definitely not saying that the other horn came out of one of the four horns. What he is saying is that the other horn came out of one of the four winds of heaven.

How do we know this for sure. We go back to the original language. In Hebrew the word for them (mehem) is masculine. The word for horn (qeren) is feminine. And the word for winds (ruchout) is gender neutral.

A Hebrew writer would never use a masculine pronoun to refer to a feminine noun. Therefore the Hebrew reader would readily understand that the author was referring to the gender neutral noun.

To the Hebrew reader this would be just as plain as if the writer had said "out of one of the four winds". But in English this is lost.

If a 2nd century writer was referring to AE IV, he most certainly would have used a feminine gendered pronoun to indicate that he was referring to the four horns.  AE IV definitely came out of one of the four horns. By referring to the winds instead of the horns he pretty much precludes AE IV.

Therefore it makes sense to look for another power that this horn represents.

 

Nice try.

Please supply the source of your information. I don't recall that you have an advance degree in Hebrew Language studies, or do you?

Link?

Also the following is the JPS Hebrew version of the verses under discussion;

JPS Hebrew version says this in Daniel 8:7-9 "And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and broke his two horns; and there was no power in the ram to stand before him; but he cast him down to the ground, and trampled upon him; and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. 8 And the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly; and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and instead of it there came up the appearance of four horns toward the four winds of heaven. 9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the beauteous land."

 

Admittedly one can play with the language in English. Does out of one of them refer to the horns? Does out of them refer to the 4 winds? The four winds are said to be of heaven, not the 4 winds of earth. Possibly a big deal.

However, see  Critical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 1899 by Driver - free google ebook pp 230-232. Driver discusses the interpretations and concludes otherwise than you.

The Jewish encloclopedia online seems to agree with me that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE and not by Daniel in the 6th century BCE. They also see it as Antiochus IV and the persecution. Since the book of Daniel is from their writing, their understanding should take precedance. As one would assume the Jewish rabbis responsible for this article are far more familar than you are in Hebrew it seems to discredit your position.

see - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=34&letter=D&search=book%20of%20daniel

Please explain why your interpretations should be considered over the Hebrews and Jews.

 

***Edit Added***

Also consider Daniel 8:22-23(NIV)- which makes it clear that it is a king from one of the kingdoms, not a new kingdom from across the 4 winds as you claim.

"The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.  ²³ “In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a fierce-looking king, a master of intrigue, will arise."

***End Edit***

 

Sorry, Yes, a link for references is in place.

For a good online readable side by side English translation of the Hebrew with the Strong's Lexicon, I am using the following site.

www.biblos.com

Unfortunately Strong's Lexicon here does not always include the complete gender information. Another site I use to obtain further information is:

www.blueletterbible.org

This site is referenced off of The Wordbook of the Old Testament, which is not available online.

The first site will give the Strong's reference number. I use this to match the exact Hebrew word used in the text, and the second site gives further information.

What you will find is that the word for "them" used in the text is masculine only, and sometimes mistaken by modern readers to be feminine. The word for "horns" used in the text is always feminine. And the word for "winds" is usually feminine, but sometimes masculine, making it the only word that "them" can be referring to.

I hope this link helps

Gramps

The links you gave are both from primarily Christian Websites not from Hebrew-Jewish Language studies or from Rabbinic commentary,

and just may have some ulterior motive in mind such as the support of Jesus as the messiah perhaps.

The actual analysis it would seem was done by you as neither of these sites explains in detail what you claim, and you  have been very clear what your prejudices are in regard to the messiah being Jesus as well as your goals in the dissection of Daniel towards proving it supports your view that a god exists by showing prophecy in the Book of Daniel that supposedly has occurred and therefore will occur later in time. As opposed to the position it was written during the 2nd century and only documents that which occured. So far, you are still far from your goal in showing that Daniel was prophecy.

I would point out to you that difficult as it may be, you need to actually go to Jewish websites and read the commentaries from rabbis and Jews expert in the study. This can be difficult due to the overwhelming Christian presence on the web versus the Jewish presence. Google searches invariably swamp the users with Christian commentaries and Christian interpretation even when Jewish or Judaism is included as part of the search term. As Daniel has basis prior to the Christian development the understanding of Daniel from rabbinic sources is important to the meaning of the text. Their perspective and bias is in opposition to your views and is what you as a claimed "freethinker" should consider. If you really are not a "freethinker" then stay with the prejudicial basis and references you utilize to support your beliefs.

Since the OT originates under Jewish belief I advocate researching the understanding of the Jewish interpretations. In all cases, Jewish understanding is contrary to your interpretations in regard to the little horn coming forth from the 4 winds and not originating in one of the 4 horns or kingdoms. Differences occur as with Cowles the Christian as to the date attributed to the writing of Daniel.

see  - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_04854.html

see - http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Writings/Daniel.shtml

Hebrew language studies - http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ in the event you desire to learn the language.

Though I do use the NIV in discussions with Christians I also utilize the Hebrew JPS version which many times is clearer on the Jewish perspective -  found here - http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I find it interesting that your interpretation hinges more on "It has to be that way for my argument to work" than any evidence that you might have.

I guess if by now you have yet to perceive that it is evidence and logic we are using, there is no point in my trying to get you to see it now. You have "parroted" this point a few times already. It really does not have much substance.

jcgadfly wrote:

Even if you try to make Rome the fourth beast you still have issues because the claim is that the fourth kingdom is different from all the others. I'm not sure how Rome fits that either.

The term "different from all the others" can mean many things. Rome was indeed different. It was not ruled by a single king or monarch, it was a Republic. And the latter (divided) stage of "Rome" was indeed different in many ways.

I don't see that "different" could possibly pose any problems. On the other hand, AE IV was quite the same in most ways, only differing in his hostility.

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Even if you try to make Rome the fourth beast you still have issues because the claim is that the fourth kingdom is different from all the others. I'm not sure how Rome fits that either.

The term "different from all the others" can mean many things. Rome was indeed different. It was not ruled by a single king or monarch, it was a Republic. And the latter (divided) stage of "Rome" was indeed different in many ways.

I don't see that "different" could possibly pose any problems. On the other hand, AE IV was quite the same in most ways, only differing in his hostility.

Was Rome still a Republic when they took Judaea/Palestina? I'm looking at the timeline and I don't see it.

I think it poses a significant problem if you are claiming that Imperial Rome was different from all other empires.

Or are you saying republican Rome is the little horn and imperial Rome is the 4th beast (or both)?

 

If you go down past the breakup of the Roman Empire to Papal Rome, it became primarily a church-state government. And that was clearly different.

gramster wrote:

If you go down past the breakup of the Roman Empire to Papal Rome, it became primarily a church-state government. And that was clearly different.

 

Papal Rome was not the 1st church state nor the last and only. So how is papal-rome  different than the church-State of Judah in the Hebrew bible? Or many other church states you ignore in other cultures and histories.

Did not the Aztec beliefs also make it a church state? Modern Mexico does not resemble the Aztec empire very much either just like the modern world has little resemblance to pre-empire Rome. Saying that the modern world does not resemble pre-empire Rome monarchies is accurate and also trivia BS. The modern world does not resemble the world of the caveman much either. The change might be something called progress and learning.

You look for different in a narrow minded way to puzzle piece fit as you have done throughout this thread.

Try again, this line of thought doesn't work for me.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

But only as long as you make the jump to the Popes which doesn't fit the prophecies.

When have the Popes conquered Israel?

Hmm, it seems to me that the 4th beast starts out rather small, than becomes exceedingly great, than in it's later stages becomes a divided kingdom. When Rome was "small", they did not conquer the territories inhabited by the Jews. When Rome became exceedingly great, it did control those territories. In the later stages The Roman Empire was broken up or divided, this came a considerable time after Israel was "conquered".

The Popes were never prophesied to "conquer" Israel. But they do fit into the scenario portrayed in the book of Daniel which we will be discussing shortly.

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

Yes, my links were from primarily Christian sources. When examining biblical texts it is difficult to find comprehensive non-christian sources. On ancient-hebrew.org, and in strong's I did find more brief definitions, but they fell short of giving much information on word gender. I did not find any "neutral" or Jewish source that goes into this very well.

I checked out your links that you posted. The 4 author theory is interesting. It is a good way to get around the problems associated with having a single 2nd century author. I found the articles a bit short on evidence or proof, but I will have to study this more carefully.

The problem with putting too much credibility on the Jewish perspective is the fact that they rejected the "Jesus Messiah", and Christianity. They can not accept the plain interpretation of Daniel that points to the things they do not wish to believe. That does not mean that it is not worthwhile to study and consider what they have to say.

This is much like examining Cowles beliefs, the atheist viewpoint, and my own beliefs on this. The Jews, like the rest of us are bias, and therefore must be accepted, on the base of evidence and logic. I will therefore put it on my agenda to examine their viewpoints more closely.

 

Christians are far more extroverted than the Jews,  concentrating on proselytizing and spreading their beliefs much like a deadly virus.  It should be no surprise there is difficulty in finding sources that have not been contaminated by the Christian perspective. The Church Fathers made attempts early on to not only suppress that which was contrary to their perceived interpretations but were active in the destruction of it as well. Jews on the other hand don't go door to door spreading their beliefs.

In order to get the views of the originators of the Hebrew scriptures, one must spend more time in searching thanks to Christian suppression I mentioned. The Jews really don't care what the rest of the world believes therefore they usually don't bother with extensive explanations that can be easily found, though they are out there if you look.

The Jews as the originators of the belief in Yahweh as god should be given the greatest investigation and consideration  of all, not ignored as Christians do simply because they reject the morphed messiah of Jesus. Since those that created the god-belief and its supporting scriptures disagree with your twisted interpretations, it certainly puts the Christian in a position of weakness. If the people who created the god don't understand what is meant, it certainly isn't possible for an outsider to have any clue. This is how puzzle-piece fitting starts on the Christian believers' part and causes the need to validate their beliefs by taking Hebrew scripture out of context to mean that which it was never intended. They have many valid reasons to reject what they consider to be idolatry on your part. This goes into another area, something I'm arguing with another believer in another thread right now. We can argue this later on, or in the thread I mentioned if you want.

The Jews are most certainly biased, their people developed a belief system and the morphed god Yahweh for their explanations of life and how to live it.  The Christian takes their beliefs and distorts and creates new meaning where it was never meant. I clearly don't believe the Jewish god is real or has basis in reality, but they have a far greater basis than the warped morphed interpretations of Pauline Christianity. Twisted interpretations of Jewish scripture will not make your messiah real, nor will it support your goal of proving the god is real by warping it to show your interpreted Daniel prophecies have occurred or will occur. The Christian has no solid basis to morph the meaning of Jewish belief in the direction they take. Your position will require you to prove the Jews made errors and to show how and where they did so. This will mean finding where and how their prophets, which you also use, made errors in prophecy. If their prophets made such errors, it makes them not very credible and therefore unusable for proving they prophesied in regard to a messiah named Jesus. Good Luck trying this. The end result if you really buy into the god is you should become a Jew.

For now, all that is needed to discredit your Roman theory's interpretation is the alternatives of Cowles, the 2nd century origin, and the 2 Jewish interpretations showing adequate explanations. Your theory so far has weaker correlation than any of the others. You still need to complete your presentation and detail how Rome, the popes, and the derived countries you claim as the 10 kings all fit. What you showed earlier had holes as they don't relate to the Jewish nation, but perhaps you still have a hidden rabbit or 2 to pull out.

As you have suggested, I have been looking in to the views of the "Originators of Hebrew Scripture". I have started with the early centuries BC when the book of Daniel was supposedly written, as this seems most relevant.

I started with 1 Maccabees where I find one reference to Daniel made by Mattathias who on his deathbed referred to Daniel as a real person. He mentions him along with other Bible characters. 1 Mac 2:51-60.

I find it quite difficult to imagine that Mattathias would have believed that Daniel was a real person, and mention him with other Bible characters if the Book of Daniel was written in his own time "history as it was written".

I find it equally unbelievable that Mattathias would have made reference to a fictional Daniel character as if he were a real person on his deathbed, dying knowing that he was making a deceptive statement.

Mattathias most certainly must have believed Daniel to be a real person from scripture. That makes the late date of authorship of Daniel highly unlikely to impossible.

I searched a little more, looking for any early reference to the book of Daniel and found one in 11Q Melchizedek where the statement is made "anointed of the spirit of whom Daniel spoke". This points to the fact that the "Jewish" writer of this manuscript written in early BC believed Daniel to be a real and not fictional person. He also seems to give weight to the Daniel character since one hardly quotes an unknown or unimportant person.

Although my investigation is in it's early stages, and I do not have ready references, there also seems to be evidence that the Cannon that was complete in the 2nd Century BC included Daniel, and that no writings that were believed to have been completed later than the days of Nehemiah were considered to be eligible.

Daniel seems to have been included in the earliest papyri of the Septuigent which was written somewhere between 250 and 150 BC. The mere inclusion of Daniel in the Septuigent seems quite remarkable since it was supposed to have been authored during this time.

It also seems that the "Jewish" translators of the Qumran who lived only decades after Daniel was supposedly written seem to have considered Daniel cannon.

Although my investigation is still quite early and incomplete, I have not yet found any evidence that the early Jewish writers believed Daniel to be a fictional character, or the book to have been authored as fictional by an unknown author.

I agree with you that considerable weight should be given to what the "Originators of the Hebrew Scriptures" believed in regards to the book of Daniel. Especially in the early centuries BC. I will investigate the above issues more completely over the coming weeks.

By these accounts, a second century BC date for the authorship of the book of Daniel seems almost impossible.

As for the Roman theory being discredited by Cowles, it seems that so far we have found just the opposite to be true. Cowles theory has come up short already on many points. We will continue and see how the rest of the book of Daniel plays out. 

  

 

Earlier in this thread I addressed all of these points as to the dating of the DSS. The dates of translation books of the Septuigent, the claims of canon etc.

 

Go back and look. I don't need to repeat it. There are comments in posts 527, 544 and in 565. There are probably more places but you'll have to look yourself.

PJTS from post 565 wrote:

The only thing for sure complete before the 2nd century BCE in the LXX was the Torah. As to when the rest of the Hebrew was translated there is no proof of when each book was complete.

There is conflicting information that the Torah was done either in the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.E) or during the reign of Philometor (181-146 B.C E. But again, that's only the Torah. No dates are known exactly for the rest.

However, the grandson of ben Sira who you don't accept in 132 BCE wrote that the Law, the Prophets and the other books were translated by then. But you don't accept Sira so oh well I guess you can’t use him for help.

As I'm sure you are aware the Jews considered the LXX as divergent due to it's corruption and inaccuracies. It was not acceptable for theological discussions and fell out of favor. But as you say, you're not a Jew so you don't care. These divergences however can and do affect what you accept.

 

Quote:

Come now, you know better than that. The text does not state that the 4th beast would be different than Judah, or any other country in history. It states that it would be different than "the others". Others as in the other powers being discussed which were specifically Babylon, "Medo-Persia", and "Greece".

 

"Rome" as a 4th power, is clearly different in many more ways than the Seleucid Empire, or AE IV where there was a brief but fairly intense persecution of the Jews.

Talk  about ignoring facts and puzzle fitting!

There was a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish, it was so fragile.

 

It's nonsensical to talk about Rome being 'different' than other powers or empires because it was never a static, defined entity. We're talking about a state that existed for many centuries, went through several epochs, made at least one drastic transition from a pluralistic republic to an iron fisted dictatorship, and which was divided politically for almost all of it's existence (much like how the superpowers in contemporary times are). 

The text is simply invalid as a prediction - it' too vague. If we had a plain as day prophecy with specific dates & names for, say, who would ascend the throne in Rome and when, sure, we'd have something very interesting (though this alone would not be proof of divinity; it would simply be evidence that an author apparently somehow knew how things would unfold in Rome) - but we don't have that.

 

 

EDIT: To put this in perspective, Leon Trotsky was able to predict with extraordinary precision the course that German fascism would take in the 40s, which countries Hitler would attack and when / with whom treaties would be made. 

Does that make Trotsky a divine prophet?

Christians are far more extroverted than the Jews,  concentrating on proselytizing and spreading their beliefs much like a deadly virus.  It should be no surprise there is difficulty in finding sources that have not been contaminated by the Christian perspective. The Church Fathers made attempts early on to not only suppress that which was contrary to their perceived interpretations but were active in the destruction of it as well. Jews on the other hand don't go door to door spreading their beliefs.

In order to get the views of the originators of the Hebrew scriptures, one must spend more time in searching thanks to Christian suppression I mentioned. The Jews really don't care what the rest of the world believes therefore they usually don't bother with extensive explanations that can be easily found, though they are out there if you look.

The Jews as the originators of the belief in Yahweh as god should be given the greatest investigation and consideration  of all, not ignored as Christians do simply because they reject the morphed messiah of Jesus.

Since those that created the god-belief and its supporting scriptures disagree with your twisted interpretations, it certainly puts the Christian in a position of weakness.

 

If the people who created the god don't understand what is meant, it certainly isn't possible for an outsider to have any clue. This is how puzzle-piece fitting starts on the Christian believers' part and causes the need to validate their beliefs by taking Hebrew scripture out of context to mean that which it was never intended. They have many valid reasons to reject what they consider to be idolatry on your part. This goes into another area, something I'm arguing with another believer in another thread right now. We can argue this later on, or in the thread I mentioned if you want.

The Jews are most certainly biased, their people developed a belief system and the morphed god Yahweh for their explanations of life and how to live it.  The Christian takes their beliefs and distorts and creates new meaning where it was never meant. I clearly don't believe the Jewish god is real or has basis in reality, but they have a far greater basis than the warped morphed interpretations of Pauline Christianity. Twisted interpretations of Jewish scripture will not make your messiah real, nor will it support your goal of proving the god is real by warping it to show your interpreted Daniel prophecies have occurred or will occur. The Christian has no solid basis to morph the meaning of Jewish belief in the direction they take. Your position will require you to prove the Jews made errors and to show how and where they did so. This will mean finding where and how their prophets, which you also use, made errors in prophecy. If their prophets made such errors, it makes them not very credible and therefore unusable for proving they prophesied in regard to a messiah named Jesus. Good Luck trying this. The end result if you really buy into the god is you should become a Jew.

For now, all that is needed to discredit your Roman theory's interpretation is the alternatives of Cowles, the 2nd century origin, and the 2 Jewish interpretations showing adequate explanations. Your theory so far has weaker correlation than any of the others. You still need to complete your presentation and detail how Rome, the popes, and the derived countries you claim as the 10 kings all fit. What you showed earlier had holes as they don't relate to the Jewish nation, but perhaps you still have a hidden rabbit or 2 to pull out.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

Yes, my links were from primarily Christian sources. When examining biblical texts it is difficult to find comprehensive non-christian sources. On ancient-hebrew.org, and in strong's I did find more brief definitions, but they fell short of giving much information on word gender. I did not find any "neutral" or Jewish source that goes into this very well.

I checked out your links that you posted. The 4 author theory is interesting. It is a good way to get around the problems associated with having a single 2nd century author. I found the articles a bit short on evidence or proof, but I will have to study this more carefully.

The problem with putting too much credibility on the Jewish perspective is the fact that they rejected the "Jesus Messiah", and Christianity. They can not accept the plain interpretation of Daniel that points to the things they do not wish to believe. That does not mean that it is not worthwhile to study and consider what they have to say.

This is much like examining Cowles beliefs, the atheist viewpoint, and my own beliefs on this. The Jews, like the rest of us are bias, and therefore must be accepted, on the base of evidence and logic. I will therefore put it on my agenda to examine their viewpoints more closely.

 

Christians are far more extroverted than the Jews,  concentrating on proselytizing and spreading their beliefs much like a deadly virus.  It should be no surprise there is difficulty in finding sources that have not been contaminated by the Christian perspective. The Church Fathers made attempts early on to not only suppress that which was contrary to their perceived interpretations but were active in the destruction of it as well. Jews on the other hand don't go door to door spreading their beliefs.

In order to get the views of the originators of the Hebrew scriptures, one must spend more time in searching thanks to Christian suppression I mentioned. The Jews really don't care what the rest of the world believes therefore they usually don't bother with extensive explanations that can be easily found, though they are out there if you look.

The Jews as the originators of the belief in Yahweh as god should be given the greatest investigation and consideration  of all, not ignored as Christians do simply because they reject the morphed messiah of Jesus. Since those that created the god-belief and its supporting scriptures disagree with your twisted interpretations, it certainly puts the Christian in a position of weakness. If the people who created the god don't understand what is meant, it certainly isn't possible for an outsider to have any clue. This is how puzzle-piece fitting starts on the Christian believers' part and causes the need to validate their beliefs by taking Hebrew scripture out of context to mean that which it was never intended. They have many valid reasons to reject what they consider to be idolatry on your part. This goes into another area, something I'm arguing with another believer in another thread right now. We can argue this later on, or in the thread I mentioned if you want.

The Jews are most certainly biased, their people developed a belief system and the morphed god Yahweh for their explanations of life and how to live it.  The Christian takes their beliefs and distorts and creates new meaning where it was never meant. I clearly don't believe the Jewish god is real or has basis in reality, but they have a far greater basis than the warped morphed interpretations of Pauline Christianity. Twisted interpretations of Jewish scripture will not make your messiah real, nor will it support your goal of proving the god is real by warping it to show your interpreted Daniel prophecies have occurred or will occur. The Christian has no solid basis to morph the meaning of Jewish belief in the direction they take. Your position will require you to prove the Jews made errors and to show how and where they did so. This will mean finding where and how their prophets, which you also use, made errors in prophecy. If their prophets made such errors, it makes them not very credible and therefore unusable for proving they prophesied in regard to a messiah named Jesus. Good Luck trying this. The end result if you really buy into the god is you should become a Jew.

For now, all that is needed to discredit your Roman theory's interpretation is the alternatives of Cowles, the 2nd century origin, and the 2 Jewish interpretations showing adequate explanations. Your theory so far has weaker correlation than any of the others. You still need to complete your presentation and detail how Rome, the popes, and the derived countries you claim as the 10 kings all fit. What you showed earlier had holes as they don't relate to the Jewish nation, but perhaps you still have a hidden rabbit or 2 to pull out.

As you have suggested, I have been looking in to the views of the "Originators of Hebrew Scripture". I have started with the early centuries BC when the book of Daniel was supposedly written, as this seems most relevant.

I started with 1 Maccabees where I find one reference to Daniel made by Mattathias who on his deathbed referred to Daniel as a real person. He mentions him along with other Bible characters. 1 Mac 2:51-60.

I find it quite difficult to imagine that Mattathias would have believed that Daniel was a real person, and mention him with other Bible characters if the Book of Daniel was written in his own time "history as it was written".

I find it equally unbelievable that Mattathias would have made reference to a fictional Daniel character as if he were a real person on his deathbed, dying knowing that he was making a deceptive statement.

Mattathias most certainly must have believed Daniel to be a real person from scripture. That makes the late date of authorship of Daniel highly unlikely to impossible.

I searched a little more, looking for any early reference to the book of Daniel and found one in 11Q Melchizedek where the statement is made "anointed of the spirit of whom Daniel spoke". This points to the fact that the "Jewish" writer of this manuscript written in early BC believed Daniel to be a real and not fictional person. He also seems to give weight to the Daniel character since one hardly quotes an unknown or unimportant person.

Although my investigation is in it's early stages, and I do not have ready references, there also seems to be evidence that the Cannon that was complete in the 2nd Century BC included Daniel, and that no writings that were believed to have been completed later than the days of Nehemiah were considered to be eligible.

Daniel seems to have been included in the earliest papyri of the Septuagint which was written somewhere between 250 and 150 BC. The mere inclusion of Daniel in the Septuagint seems quite remarkable since it was supposed to have been authored during this time.

It also seems that the "Jewish" translators of the Qumran who lived only decades after Daniel was supposedly written seem to have considered Daniel cannon.

Although my investigation is still quite early and incomplete, I have not yet found any evidence that the early Jewish writers believed Daniel to be a fictional character, or the book to have been authored as fictional by an unknown author.

I agree with you that considerable weight should be given to what the "Originators of the Hebrew Scriptures" believed in regards to the book of Daniel. Especially in the early centuries BC. I will investigate the above issues more completely over the coming weeks.

By these accounts, a second century BC date for the authorship of the book of Daniel seems almost impossible.

As for the Roman theory being discredited by Cowles, it seems that so far we have found just the opposite to be true. Cowles theory has come up short already on many points. We will continue and see how the rest of the book of Daniel plays out. 

  

 

Earlier in this thread I addressed all of these points as to the dating of the DSS. The dates of translation books of the Septuagint, the claims of canon etc.

 

Go back and look. I don't need to repeat it. There are comments in posts 527, 544 and in 565. There are probably more places but you'll have to look yourself.

PJTS from post 565 wrote:

The only thing for sure complete before the 2nd century BCE in the LXX was the Torah. As to when the rest of the Hebrew was translated there is no proof of when each book was complete.

There is conflicting information that the Torah was done either in the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.E) or during the reign of Philometor (181-146 B.C E. But again, that's only the Torah. No dates are known exactly for the rest.

However, the grandson of ben Sira who you don't accept in 132 BCE wrote that the Law, the Prophets and the other books were translated by then. But you don't accept Sira so oh well I guess you can’t use him for help.

As I'm sure you are aware the Jews considered the LXX as divergent due to it's corruption and inaccuracies. It was not acceptable for theological discussions and fell out of favor. But as you say, you're not a Jew so you don't care. These divergences however can and do affect what you accept.

I reviewed these posts. There is the claim that the Nabonidus Chronicles document the death of Belshazzar in the battle of Opis... . I did see reference to that battle, and the slaughter of the inhabitants, but not of the death of Belshazzar, or of his presence there.

How could this aged old priest have thought Daniel was a real person, and list him with other real figures in scripture, if in fact the book of Daniel was a very recent fabrication? This does not add up. This does not seem to be within the realm of possibility. This presents a very significant problem with the "history as written" theory.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Christians are far more extroverted than the Jews,  concentrating on proselytizing and spreading their beliefs much like a deadly virus.  It should be no surprise there is difficulty in finding sources that have not been contaminated by the Christian perspective. The Church Fathers made attempts early on to not only suppress that which was contrary to their perceived interpretations but were active in the destruction of it as well. Jews on the other hand don't go door to door spreading their beliefs.

Jews were not commissioned by God to go door to door to spread their belief, Christians are.  To be more specific, Christians are commissioned to spread "the news of Jesus Christ" and not specifically their belief which can differ greatly from the scripture. 

it is logical that we wouldn't find sources as detailed as Christian sources be it that other beliefs would not find detailing these certain aspects of importance because it doesn't further support their view. Secular researchers, though they may be a little more detailed would again not find reason in going into sufficient detail because of course they would be taking it from the perspective that it's just a story and not so much historical.  So in conclusion, of course it should be no surprise, though i wouldn't call it contamination unless it's directly linked to a specific religious source and not generally Christianity.  Not to say that these sources cant' be credible, but we'd need to look at them closer to make sure they didn't skew the information to fit their ideals. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In order to get the views of the originators of the Hebrew scriptures, one must spend more time in searching thanks to Christian suppression I mentioned. The Jews really don't care what the rest of the world believes therefore they usually don't bother with extensive explanations that can be easily found, though they are out there if you look.

the corruption in Christian sects has made it harder to find legitimate detailed information.  

You say Jews really don't care what the rest of the world believes and for the most part neither do Christians.  The exception is as mentioned that we are commissioned to spread the news of Jesus and because of the corruption through the ages and today, we followers of Christ like to show the people who openly confuse the truth how they are mistaken so as to not lead others who might actually want to know the truth astray. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The Jews as the originators of the belief in Yahweh as god should be given the greatest investigation and consideration  of all, not ignored as Christians do simply because they reject the morphed messiah of Jesus.

I don't know if you mentioned it before Gram, but I would disagree with you if you said we should ignore the Jewish studies as PJTS seems to be suggesting here.  Though from the posts I've read and the typical assumptions PJTS usually jumps to, i would easily assume you didn't say that.  No offense PJTS.  

Be it that the NT is completely dependent on the Jewish understanding, I find it hard for anyone to claim we need to ignore Jewish understanding.  Rather we need to understand it and also understand why Jews today still don't accept Jesus as the messiah.  From what i've seen so far when comparing the differences, it's a misunderstood grasp of the scriptures without the understanding of what we have discovered through the years of research and better understanding of the culture of the time for today's jews.  It is my understanding that even Jews during Jesus' time would disagree with the Jewish approach of today, though they may have different reasonings for not believing.  Scriptures showed that most Jews who were around Jesus at the time, even at his death, eventually believed that he was the messiah and admitted to being mistaken for not believing.  

yes, it could be argued from an outside perspective that this conclusion is from scripture and has no support in history.  Then again, if you're going to take that approach, then I'd need to see the support for the latter.  The fact that there are Jews today isn't support. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Since those that created the god-belief and its supporting scriptures disagree with your twisted interpretations, it certainly puts the Christian in a position of weakness.

What of the Jews for Jesus? 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

If the people who created the god don't understand what is meant, it certainly isn't possible for an outsider to have any clue. This is how puzzle-piece fitting starts on the Christian believers' part and causes the need to validate their beliefs by taking Hebrew scripture out of context to mean that which it was never intended. They have many valid reasons to reject what they consider to be idolatry on your part. This goes into another area, something I'm arguing with another believer in another thread right now. We can argue this later on, or in the thread I mentioned if you want.

It is my understanding that the Christians are the most analytical of all scripture and outside sources supporting or opposing.  Therefore, your argument here doesn't hold water.  Any attempt to show how Christians have taken Hebrew script out of context has been quickly shut down.  One big reason is because those arguing this point have little or no understanding of the Hebrew text or writing styles. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The Jews are most certainly biased, their people developed a belief system and the morphed god Yahweh for their explanations of life and how to live it.  The Christian takes their beliefs and distorts and creates new meaning where it was never meant. I clearly don't believe the Jewish god is real or has basis in reality, but they have a far greater basis than the warped morphed interpretations of Pauline Christianity. Twisted interpretations of Jewish scripture will not make your messiah real, nor will it support your goal of proving the god is real by warping it to show your interpreted Daniel prophecies have occurred or will occur. The Christian has no solid basis to morph the meaning of Jewish belief in the direction they take. Your position will require you to prove the Jews made errors and to show how and where they did so. This will mean finding where and how their prophets, which you also use, made errors in prophecy. If their prophets made such errors, it makes them not very credible and therefore unusable for proving they prophesied in regard to a messiah named Jesus. Good Luck trying this. The end result if you really buy into the god is you should become a Jew.

Claiming Christians twisted their interpretation of the Jewish scripture will not make God any less real either.  You challenge us to prove that the Jews made errors... to who?  You?   Why bother, you don't even accept the Jewish understanding.  Let's first focus on the existence of God... or continue in the Daniel book focusing on validity in history, then once you can accept the Jewish belief, we can discuss the differences.

No this isn't a cop-out.  If I knew you were a believing Jew, i would be more than happy to sit down and discuss the differences.  I have done that with Jews and they seem very interested in our interpretation be it that their "differences' (at least for today's Jews) seem to be stemmed more in misunderstanding of what Christians believe rather than your claim about morphing the interpretation of the Jewish scripture. 

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

Yes, my links were from primarily Christian sources. When examining biblical texts it is difficult to find comprehensive non-christian sources. On ancient-hebrew.org, and in strong's I did find more brief definitions, but they fell short of giving much information on word gender. I did not find any "neutral" or Jewish source that goes into this very well.

I checked out your links that you posted. The 4 author theory is interesting. It is a good way to get around the problems associated with having a single 2nd century author. I found the articles a bit short on evidence or proof, but I will have to study this more carefully.

The problem with putting too much credibility on the Jewish perspective is the fact that they rejected the "Jesus Messiah", and Christianity. They can not accept the plain interpretation of Daniel that points to the things they do not wish to believe. That does not mean that it is not worthwhile to study and consider what they have to say.

This is much like examining Cowles beliefs, the atheist viewpoint, and my own beliefs on this. The Jews, like the rest of us are bias, and therefore must be accepted, on the base of evidence and logic. I will therefore put it on my agenda to examine their viewpoints more closely.

 

Christians are far more extroverted than the Jews,  concentrating on proselytizing and spreading their beliefs much like a deadly virus.  It should be no surprise there is difficulty in finding sources that have not been contaminated by the Christian perspective. The Church Fathers made attempts early on to not only suppress that which was contrary to their perceived interpretations but were active in the destruction of it as well. Jews on the other hand don't go door to door spreading their beliefs.

In order to get the views of the originators of the Hebrew scriptures, one must spend more time in searching thanks to Christian suppression I mentioned. The Jews really don't care what the rest of the world believes therefore they usually don't bother with extensive explanations that can be easily found, though they are out there if you look.

The Jews as the originators of the belief in Yahweh as god should be given the greatest investigation and consideration  of all, not ignored as Christians do simply because they reject the morphed messiah of Jesus. Since those that created the god-belief and its supporting scriptures disagree with your twisted interpretations, it certainly puts the Christian in a position of weakness. If the people who created the god don't understand what is meant, it certainly isn't possible for an outsider to have any clue. This is how puzzle-piece fitting starts on the Christian believers' part and causes the need to validate their beliefs by taking Hebrew scripture out of context to mean that which it was never intended. They have many valid reasons to reject what they consider to be idolatry on your part. This goes into another area, something I'm arguing with another believer in another thread right now. We can argue this later on, or in the thread I mentioned if you want.

The Jews are most certainly biased, their people developed a belief system and the morphed god Yahweh for their explanations of life and how to live it.  The Christian takes their beliefs and distorts and creates new meaning where it was never meant. I clearly don't believe the Jewish god is real or has basis in reality, but they have a far greater basis than the warped morphed interpretations of Pauline Christianity. Twisted interpretations of Jewish scripture will not make your messiah real, nor will it support your goal of proving the god is real by warping it to show your interpreted Daniel prophecies have occurred or will occur. The Christian has no solid basis to morph the meaning of Jewish belief in the direction they take. Your position will require you to prove the Jews made errors and to show how and where they did so. This will mean finding where and how their prophets, which you also use, made errors in prophecy. If their prophets made such errors, it makes them not very credible and therefore unusable for proving they prophesied in regard to a messiah named Jesus. Good Luck trying this. The end result if you really buy into the god is you should become a Jew.

For now, all that is needed to discredit your Roman theory's interpretation is the alternatives of Cowles, the 2nd century origin, and the 2 Jewish interpretations showing adequate explanations. Your theory so far has weaker correlation than any of the others. You still need to complete your presentation and detail how Rome, the popes, and the derived countries you claim as the 10 kings all fit. What you showed earlier had holes as they don't relate to the Jewish nation, but perhaps you still have a hidden rabbit or 2 to pull out.

As you have suggested, I have been looking in to the views of the "Originators of Hebrew Scripture". I have started with the early centuries BC when the book of Daniel was supposedly written, as this seems most relevant.

I started with 1 Maccabees where I find one reference to Daniel made by Mattathias who on his deathbed referred to Daniel as a real person. He mentions him along with other Bible characters. 1 Mac 2:51-60.

I find it quite difficult to imagine that Mattathias would have believed that Daniel was a real person, and mention him with other Bible characters if the Book of Daniel was written in his own time "history as it was written".

I find it equally unbelievable that Mattathias would have made reference to a fictional Daniel character as if he were a real person on his deathbed, dying knowing that he was making a deceptive statement.

Mattathias most certainly must have believed Daniel to be a real person from scripture. That makes the late date of authorship of Daniel highly unlikely to impossible.

I searched a little more, looking for any early reference to the book of Daniel and found one in 11Q Melchizedek where the statement is made "anointed of the spirit of whom Daniel spoke". This points to the fact that the "Jewish" writer of this manuscript written in early BC believed Daniel to be a real and not fictional person. He also seems to give weight to the Daniel character since one hardly quotes an unknown or unimportant person.

Although my investigation is in it's early stages, and I do not have ready references, there also seems to be evidence that the Cannon that was complete in the 2nd Century BC included Daniel, and that no writings that were believed to have been completed later than the days of Nehemiah were considered to be eligible.

Daniel seems to have been included in the earliest papyri of the Septuagint which was written somewhere between 250 and 150 BC. The mere inclusion of Daniel in the Septuagint seems quite remarkable since it was supposed to have been authored during this time.

It also seems that the "Jewish" translators of the Qumran who lived only decades after Daniel was supposedly written seem to have considered Daniel cannon.

Although my investigation is still quite early and incomplete, I have not yet found any evidence that the early Jewish writers believed Daniel to be a fictional character, or the book to have been authored as fictional by an unknown author.

I agree with you that considerable weight should be given to what the "Originators of the Hebrew Scriptures" believed in regards to the book of Daniel. Especially in the early centuries BC. I will investigate the above issues more completely over the coming weeks.

By these accounts, a second century BC date for the authorship of the book of Daniel seems almost impossible.

As for the Roman theory being discredited by Cowles, it seems that so far we have found just the opposite to be true. Cowles theory has come up short already on many points. We will continue and see how the rest of the book of Daniel plays out. 

  

 

Earlier in this thread I addressed all of these points as to the dating of the DSS. The dates of translation books of the Septuagint, the claims of canon etc.

 

Go back and look. I don't need to repeat it. There are comments in posts 527, 544 and in 565. There are probably more places but you'll have to look yourself.

PJTS from post 565 wrote:

The only thing for sure complete before the 2nd century BCE in the LXX was the Torah. As to when the rest of the Hebrew was translated there is no proof of when each book was complete.

There is conflicting information that the Torah was done either in the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.E) or during the reign of Philometor (181-146 B.C E. But again, that's only the Torah. No dates are known exactly for the rest.

However, the grandson of ben Sira who you don't accept in 132 BCE wrote that the Law, the Prophets and the other books were translated by then. But you don't accept Sira so oh well I guess you can’t use him for help.

As I'm sure you are aware the Jews considered the LXX as divergent due to it's corruption and inaccuracies. It was not acceptable for theological discussions and fell out of favor. But as you say, you're not a Jew so you don't care. These divergences however can and do affect what you accept.

I reviewed these posts. There is the claim that the Nabonidus Chronicles document the death of Belshazzar in the battle of Opis... . I did see reference to that battle, and the slaughter of the inhabitants, but not of the death of Belshazzar, or of his presence there.

Do you have trouble staying focused?

You were discussing Rome, the dating of Daniel and apparently any mention of him in writing of the Jews.

I told you to go back & look and you drag up issues that we have already argued and will never agree upon . You don't want to reopen the discussion on Daniel is Sci-Fi and Fantasy again do you? If so we can beat it up so more. You claiming that the magic of the Jews is more likely than the magic of other fantasy writing from antiquity.

If you want to stay on topic, I'll help you out and explain what you were looking for in the posts I mentioned.

In post #527 - "Since Jeshua ben Sira  does not mention Daniel as one of the Jewish heroes in his work some suspicion Daniel was not written by that point is in order. See Sirach 44:1-50:29 which was written before 175 BCE.

See Sirach KJV version - http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvSira.html or PDF version with notes - http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/30-sirach-nets.pdf"

In post #544 - replies to Freeminers wall of text -  The DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) were dated from 63 BCE to 152 BCE. There were additional documents dated to 63 BCE to 64 CE

I also mentioned Robert Eisenman's book. "The Dead Sea Scrolls & the First Christians" pp97-110 for understanding dating.

Freeminer's wall of text quote mentioned the writing style of the DSS was "common to the Hasmonean period (c. 150-30 B.C.)" Which only supports what I have said.

And even later dates. "and (3) a similarly large number of texts that evinces a writing style characteristic of the Herodian period (30 B.C.-A.D. 70)." Which puts the DSS far past the dates we are discussing.

As to Daniel must be held as canon, then Enoch should be as well if not to a higher level-

"The author construes it was canonical because it was there. So 1 Enoch also found in far larger quantities also should be canon, though it hasn't been held that way has it.

Number of fragments/ books of 1 Enoch in DSS = 25

Number of fragments/books of Daniel in DSS = 8

see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls"

And then I told him this -

"As I just mentioned, this only indicates the style of the scribe and little conclusion can be made just from that.
As carbon dating has these copies after 160 BCE more would be needed to claim this. See Eisenman.As for proof of the date of origin on Daniel, my main point is regarding Mattathias referring to Daniel as a real person on his deathbed in 166 BC. Being an old Jewish priest, he certainly would have know if the book of Daniel had just been written, or if it was already part of their established writings."

In post #565 -

The relevant information to what we were discussing in that post was:

1-The only part of the LXX (Septuagint) complete before the 2nd century was likely the Torah.

2-Conflicting information as to when exactly that was done - under Philadelphus (285-247 BCE) or Philometor (181-146 BCE)

3-There are no dates known for the translation of the rest of the LXX.

4-ben Sira's grandson wrote in 132 BCE in the preface for Sirach that the Law, the prophets and other books were translated by then.

Remember Daniel is not a prophet in Judaism but is in the area called "writings".

5-The LXX (Septuagint fell out of favor for theological use due to its inaccuracies and corruption.

Other arguments pertained to the dating of the LXX which Freeminer asserted was translated prior to Antiochus IV which is definitely not supported. See above. See references in the post.

Stop trying to distract and ignore, or pay attention to what we are discussing.

gramster wrote:

How could this aged old priest have thought Daniel was a real person, and list him with other real figures in scripture, if in fact the book of Daniel was a very recent fabrication? This does not add up. This does not seem to be within the realm of possibility. This presents a very significant problem with the "history as written" theory.

What is mentioned in 1 Mac 2:60 is the lions den legend, not the Daniel prophecies. No more.

This is enough for you to claim it proves the date of writing?

What weak standards you have.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Since Jews don't go around spreading their beliefs especially door to door I have a lot of respect for them. I wish all believers could adopt their method in that regard.

The methodology of how it's supposed to be done and the way it is done is drastically different.  The idea is that people should know about Jesus.  Not that we should rack up the numbers of how many people we were able to convert.  The Jews have it in the way that it's their lifestyle that interests people and that's how it spreads... ironically, it's partly how Christians are supposed to spread the word as well.  The door to door in my opinion isn't supposed to be taken literal.  I would hope you're not categorizing those who do literally go door to door with Christians. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I realize you feel this way Cap, too bad many others in the US aren't like you. Christians, Mormons and Catholics all claiming to be Christian stick their noises into everyone's lives, such as political issues, gay marriage, sex, drugs, morality etc. I see this as forcing their beliefs on others.

Basically yea... and there's no Biblical support for such approaches.  

There are hundreds of millions around the world who call themselves Christian.  Out of those hundreds of millions, many of them aren't really followers. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The Jewish perspective is different from the start Cap. Jews belief man is born with a pure soul and can return it to God in the same condition. OTOH, Christians generally believe in "original sin" and man needs Jesus' sacrifice to be saved. This is very different. The Jewish and Christian ideas are in conflict from then on. Christians don't understand the perspective of the Jews. Jews consider worshiping Jesus to be idolatry. Christians don't usually understand many of these basic beliefs. Jews of today may take a different approach in some areas, but the basic approach to God and beliefs are the same. There are many different ideas in regard to the Mashiach however. None of which has him being a part of God though. I'm working on this in another thread as I mentioned.

I should refrain from further discussing this in this thread.  What thread are you referring to?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Go visit jewsforjudaism.

After your reference in another thread to that, i skimmed it quickly.  So far doesn't seem to weaken the stance of Christianity, only Jews for Christ, as to which I had mentioned i don't fully agree with their approach on particular topics either.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Cap, your question is like this - What of Ex-Catholics for atheism?

Right, what of them?  The point is, there is a rather large group of people in the world who have found a connection between their Jewish understanding and the Christian following.  There must be a reason they are able to follow Jesus and yet still feel they're able to hold onto their Jewish roots.  From what i've discovered so far, it has a lot to do with Christianity's reliance on an accurate understanding of the Jewish scripture.  

As far as your ex-catholics for atheism.  to parallel that to my question you'd have to be implying that they both believe and accept God... and fully accept that there is no God... sorry, but that's just not logical. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The book aisle in Borders and Barnes & Noble are indeed filled with much Christian conjecture. So is the Sci-Fi aisle filled with fantasy books. There's money in it.

have you researched the profit margin for Christian authors?  There's really not much money in it... not enough to say so... to be honest, if I was in it for the money, I'd write on sci-fi first.  much more of a market for that.  Anyone who is trying to make money of Christianity wouldn't be selling books on historical analyzation or otherwise of the Bible. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Jews have analyzed and discussed their texts for far longer than Christians. Their are many rabbinic writings which do so.

of course, the've been around far longer.  A lot of in depth Christian research is reliant on those rabbininc writings.  The problem is once you need to start talking about Christianity or anything beyond the Jewish scripts, those writings aren't much help. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Jews and Christians do not see the same thing in the Hebrew scriptures. If they did all would be Jews or all would be Christian.

Christians and Jews for the most part dont' disagree with Jewish scripture, they disagree about Jesus and whether the prophetic writings about the messiah really talk about Jesus or not.  That is different than disagreeing about the scriptures and what they're saying.  

Though of course there are differences here and there... if they disagreed too much, then the disagreement is probably going beyond the Jewish and Christian understanding.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The Jews interpretation did come first, it was their religion. Their people wrote the Hebrew Bible.

right... and...

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Christians came after. Hence the interpretation is morphed and interpreted differently.
 

it's really about Jesus and whether the prophesies are talking about Him from waht I've seen so far.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Claiming Jesus as the messiah of the Jews requires understanding in detail what the Jews really understood and understand beyond the claim usually made they were self centered, close minded blah blah......

The NT claims and Jews would attest as it's mentioned a few times in the OT that there were Jewish leaders during history that would manipulate the scrolls to benefit themselves just as Christian leaders did in the past as well.  They don't see it as justification of the NT regardless of the fact that the NT details that information.  

no one who knows the history would claim Jews in general were self centered or close minded.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You need to understand the differences for yourselves. If you believe Christianity is the way, you should learn and understand where the Jews made errors beyond the standard poor explanations promoted.

have I not already expressed that I've been doing that?  There are Christians out there that dedicate their life to that kind of study... they're still Christian. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You don't need to prove to me Christians or Jews made errors, do it for your own knowledge.

I guess you and I haven't really talked on that kind of level much, but to assure you.  It's that kind of knowledge that helped me believe in what i do today.  I questioned everything including what I understood to be true.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Since I don't and won't buy into the existence of God or Daniel as proof, I should just stop now and leave it to you and Gramps.

This is why I asked the intention of the conversation.  The question wasn't just for Gramps

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

I can go with believe whatever you want, and ignore you and Gramps if you'd like me to.

nah, I like you in the conversation.  You actually make me do homework and rethink about what I think I know.  Most on here aren't as creative and forget to think sometimes. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Or we can continue to discuss, understanding we are playing to the audience and not each other.

Your Choice.

As far as this topic, just so Gramps can keep the focus on Daniel.  I can join your other thread if you'd like.  

 

gramster wrote:

 

Yes, there is no need to go back and re-hash the topic of the dating of Daniel. I realize Jeshua ben Sira did not mention Daniel in his list of hero's, just as many men of faith were not mentioned in those lists in the NT. That is just another faulty argument of omission as is so common among bible critics.

OK, you see that a Jewish author in the 2nd century didn't mention Daniel, good.

Whatever is in the NT makes no difference at this point. L Ron doesn't list them all in his Scientology Satire either.

Nobody writes about airplanes at the time of Jesus either, does that mean they had international flights?

gramster wrote:

I also realize there are no Daniel scrolls that date back earlier than the 2nd century. There are also very few scrolls of any kind that do since they do not tend to survive well that long. What a pity. To bad everything was not recorded on clay tablets.

The above does not help us much in dating Daniel.

I agree, if all was on cunneform tablets everything would be easier. Though you don't seem to like what's on the Sumerian clay tablets from what you've said in this thread. Most of their writing is either the originals or close to it, indicating nothing in regard to the gods of Hebrews who supposedly made the world. You'd think they would have known that instead of claiming Anu and Ki did it with Enki as the Lord of the Earth.

 

gramster wrote:

My point that Mattathias speaks of Daniel as a real person, as well as 11Q Melchizedek being evidence of an earlier date of authorship is not weak evidence. If on his deathbed Mattathias spoke of Daniel as a real person or biblical importance, he could not have viewed the book of Daniel to be recent fiction. And he should have known.

Mattathias only mentioned the 1 event, and he could have believed a mythical event or story was real, who can say from a single sentence.

from 1 Mac 2:60 - "Daniel in his innocency was delivered out of the mouth of the lions." - Douay-Rheims

This doesn't tell you he thought Daniel was real, only he had heard the story.

You already know that ancient writing can contain both real events and legends, if not then accept Enki as Lord of the Earth now, as the Sumerians say he was.

as to 11Q Melch - the DSS date to 135 BCE to 70 CE, clearly after the point in the 2nd century writing, so this doesn't help you.

 

gramster wrote:

That being said, I am anxious to get back to the evaluation of the text.

Good idea, this is not gaining you anything.

gramster wrote:

And to further answer the question brought up by Cap of the purpose of our discussion, I agree we are highly unlikely to "convert" each other, or come to the same conclusion. This is seldom the case. One can always hope I suppose. 

It is not my job to "convert" anyone, only to point to the truths of God's word and His salvation. Conversion is between the individual and God.

I agree with you, none of us are likely to change our positions, I'm happy with you gaining some knowledge and understanding of several things you did not know, such as Cowles and 1 Clement. Perhaps you'll  find some more things of interest as we continue.

It's not my job to save you from yourself, that's between you and yourself.

jcgadfly wrote:

1. So because Mattathias mentions Daniel as a real person you automatically assume that this Daniel wrote the book under discussion? Isn't that a bit of a leap? Could he just have been acknowledging the existence of the legend? Also, on one's death bed one is liable to say anything.

2. So because ben Sira didn't mention Daniel it was just an "omission" and he didn't mean it? Can't you acknowledge the possibility that Daniel didn't meet the Jewish standard of much of anything? It seems like the Christians are claiming that they know more about the books of the OT than the writers. Adding context to what's not there again?

3. By all means let's get back to the text. You were discussing the text plus your added context as being equivalent to the text, weren't you?

As for #1 see above. As for #2 I haven't missed that point.

As for #3 we will get back to the text and my "added context" which must be even superior to the text???

I suppose you think that discussion, commentary, and logic have no place in analyzing text. Or I should just post the text by itself, period???

I guess there's not much I can say to that logic.

 

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. So because Mattathias mentions Daniel as a real person you automatically assume that this Daniel wrote the book under discussion? Isn't that a bit of a leap? Could he just have been acknowledging the existence of the legend? Also, on one's death bed one is liable to say anything.

2. So because ben Sira didn't mention Daniel it was just an "omission" and he didn't mean it? Can't you acknowledge the possibility that Daniel didn't meet the Jewish standard of much of anything? It seems like the Christians are claiming that they know more about the books of the OT than the writers. Adding context to what's not there again?

3. By all means let's get back to the text. You were discussing the text plus your added context as being equivalent to the text, weren't you?

As for #1 see above. As for #2 I haven't missed that point.

As for #3 we will get back to the text and my "added context" which must be even superior to the text???

I suppose you think that discussion, commentary, and logic have no place in analyzing text. Or I should just post the text by itself, period???

I guess there's not much I can say to that logic.

 

Discussion, commentary and logic I have no problem with. It's a shame that's not what you've been doing. what you've been doing is a lot of "<X> can't be right because my interpretation is. And my interpretation is right because what Daniel was really saying was <re-insert interpretation>".

As for whether your added context is superior, that's your position and it's still under discussion. Indeed, your interpretation is all you wish to discuss. "<X> is wrong and I'm right" really sucks as a discussion starter - especially if that's all you say.

As for the other points, I've seen above and you haven't added anything to answer my questions.

As for JPTS analogy of the airplane, I was really disappointed that he would make such a baseless statement. He is usually much better than this. Really, omission being the basis that something does exist??? The reverse logic on this one doesn't work. 

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. So because Mattathias mentions Daniel as a real person you automatically assume that this Daniel wrote the book under discussion? Isn't that a bit of a leap? Could he just have been acknowledging the existence of the legend? Also, on one's death bed one is liable to say anything.

2. So because ben Sira didn't mention Daniel it was just an "omission" and he didn't mean it? Can't you acknowledge the possibility that Daniel didn't meet the Jewish standard of much of anything? It seems like the Christians are claiming that they know more about the books of the OT than the writers. Adding context to what's not there again?

3. By all means let's get back to the text. You were discussing the text plus your added context as being equivalent to the text, weren't you?

As for #1 see above. As for #2 I haven't missed that point.

As for #3 we will get back to the text and my "added context" which must be even superior to the text???

I suppose you think that discussion, commentary, and logic have no place in analyzing text. Or I should just post the text by itself, period???

I guess there's not much I can say to that logic.

 

Discussion, commentary and logic I have no problem with. It's a shame that's not what you've been doing. what you've been doing is a lot of "<X> can't be right because my interpretation is. And my interpretation is right because what Daniel was really saying was <re-insert interpretation>".

As for whether your added context is superior, that's your position and it's still under discussion. Indeed, your interpretation is all you wish to discuss. "<X> is wrong and I'm right" really sucks as a discussion starter - especially if that's all you say.

As for the other points, I've seen above and you haven't added anything to answer my questions.

Dear "BlogZilla"

You like to repeat the following false claim or a similar one often. It is clear to one reading my comments that I do not do what you claim. Most of the time I admit that a certain passage can fit into interpretations that are not mine. When I evaluate a text that I feel does not fit a specific interpretation, I say so, and specifically why.

It is counterproductive for you to waste time making these false claims. If I have said the above please post reference. Otherwise, please stop throwing "crap into the fan".

As for #1 above, I have discussed my reasoning. It is clear to me that Mattathias viewed Daniel as a real person, and had high regard for the book. You and PJTS don't choose to see this as it does not support your religion. That is your choice. We have beat this topic long enough. Other readers can decide for themselves what they think about this piece of evidence.

As for #2 above, the fact that Ben Sira did not mention Daniel is a point worth consideration, but hardly constitutes strong evidence. It is a pretty weak argument of omission.

As for JPTS analogy of the airplane, I was really disappointed that he would make such a baseless statement. He is usually much better than this. Really, omission being the basis that something does exist??? The reverse logic on this one doesn't work.

As for the claim that I view my discussion of a text being superior to the text itself, this is just more BlogZilla stuff.

 

 

And you prove my statement yet again. Don't make the claim that you don't do something and then do that very thing in the same post. It makes you look foolish.

"It is clear to me..." is not even close to proof. PJTS has provided support for his position from the view of Judaism that just seems to piss you off because you don't seem to have support for your position outside of your opinion.

Ben Sira's statement seems to be strong to me - mostly because you have brought nothing but your own opinion to counter it.

When all you bring is your own opinion about a text without even supporting it with the text, you lead me in no other direction than to believe that your opinion about the text is superior to the text.

I may be wrong - you might be an expert. Personally, I'd like to see your credentials. If you are truly an expert in this field, I apologize. If (as I suspect) you are simply a layman who is only sure of his own opinion and is passing that off as expertise, stop doing it because you're doing it badly.

Can you back up any of your stuff or not?

Oh, never mind. You'll likely just dismiss this again as "Blogzilla" because I can distill your pages of crap into a few sentences. Have fun anyway.

 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. So because Mattathias mentions Daniel as a real person you automatically assume that this Daniel wrote the book under discussion? Isn't that a bit of a leap? Could he just have been acknowledging the existence of the legend? Also, on one's death bed one is liable to say anything.

2. So because ben Sira didn't mention Daniel it was just an "omission" and he didn't mean it? Can't you acknowledge the possibility that Daniel didn't meet the Jewish standard of much of anything? It seems like the Christians are claiming that they know more about the books of the OT than the writers. Adding context to what's not there again?

3. By all means let's get back to the text. You were discussing the text plus your added context as being equivalent to the text, weren't you?

As for #1 see above. As for #2 I haven't missed that point.

As for #3 we will get back to the text and my "added context" which must be even superior to the text???

I suppose you think that discussion, commentary, and logic have no place in analyzing text. Or I should just post the text by itself, period???

I guess there's not much I can say to that logic.

 

Discussion, commentary and logic I have no problem with. It's a shame that's not what you've been doing. what you've been doing is a lot of "<X> can't be right because my interpretation is. And my interpretation is right because what Daniel was really saying was <re-insert interpretation>".

As for whether your added context is superior, that's your position and it's still under discussion. Indeed, your interpretation is all you wish to discuss. "<X> is wrong and I'm right" really sucks as a discussion starter - especially if that's all you say.

As for the other points, I've seen above and you haven't added anything to answer my questions.

Dear "BlogZilla"

You like to repeat the following false claim or a similar one often. It is clear to one reading my comments that I do not do what you claim. Most of the time I admit that a certain passage can fit into interpretations that are not mine. When I evaluate a text that I feel does not fit a specific interpretation, I say so, and specifically why.

It is counterproductive for you to waste time making these false claims. If I have said the above please post reference. Otherwise, please stop throwing "crap into the fan".

As for #1 above, I have discussed my reasoning. It is clear to me that Mattathias viewed Daniel as a real person, and had high regard for the book. You and PJTS don't choose to see this as it does not support your religion. That is your choice. We have beat this topic long enough. Other readers can decide for themselves what they think about this piece of evidence.

As for #2 above, the fact that Ben Sira did not mention Daniel is a point worth consideration, but hardly constitutes strong evidence. It is a pretty weak argument of omission.

As for JPTS analogy of the airplane, I was really disappointed that he would make such a baseless statement. He is usually much better than this. Really, omission being the basis that something does exist??? The reverse logic on this one doesn't work.

As for the claim that I view my discussion of a text being superior to the text itself, this is just more BlogZilla stuff.

 

 

And you prove my statement yet again. Don't make the claim that you don't do something and then do that very thing in the same post. It makes you look foolish.

"It is clear to me..." is not even close to proof. PJTS has provided support for his position from the view of Judaism that just seems to piss you off because you don't seem to have support for your position outside of your opinion.

Ben Sira's statement seems to be strong to me - mostly because you have brought nothing but your own opinion to counter it.

When all you bring is your own opinion about a text without even supporting it with the text, you lead me in no other direction than to believe that your opinion about the text is superior to the text.

I may be wrong - you might be an expert. Personally, I'd like to see your credentials. If you are truly an expert in this field, I apologize. If (as I suspect) you are simply a layman who is only sure of his own opinion and is passing that off as expertise, stop doing it because you're doing it badly.

Can you back up any of your stuff or not?

Oh, never mind. You'll likely just dismiss this again as "Blogzilla" because I can distill your pages of crap into a few sentences. Have fun anyway.

 

 

We have discussed the views of "Judaism", which is not always consistent through the centuries, and is, like all others bias. I acknowledge their views, but do not hold them to be "gospel truth".

There are highly educated scholars that agree with my views. There are scholars who believe like Cowles. There are scholars that believe in the 2nd century BC theory. I can choose to believe something on the basis of what somebody else thinks, or I can examine the evidences for myself. I choose to do the later.

I could, like PJTS just put forward a theologian that agrees with my views and leave it at that. And I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. In PJTS case it was constructive. But, I choose not to do so at this time. I would rather concentrate on examining the text verse by verse.

You may be of the opinion that only those who are highly educated have the ability to think and reason. That is your choice. You can let others do the thinking for you if you wish. As for me, I will continue to think and reason for myself.

I evaluate what one says on the basis of the reasoning put forward. Not on the basis of ones credentials. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.

You say you can "distill my crap into a few sentences". You often misconstrue my words as such, but have failed to disprove my logic. Try that for a change. Yes, all you have been doing so far is just "blogging".

We already discussed vs 9 where the little horn comes out of one of the 4 winds of heaven. Rome did not come from within, but came out of one of the 4 directions of the compass, or out of war, strife, turmoil upon the earth.

Vs 10 "And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and cast down some of the host and stars to the ground, and stamped on them"

Cowles defines the "host" as the people of God on earth. He sees these people as militant Jews, but the text does not specifically state this. The "stars" Cowles sees as the leaders of the host.

"This little horn made war upon the people of God and destroyed some of their distinguished leaders" Cowles pg 376.

I agree with Cowles in the above quote. Unlike Cowles I see this as referring to the persecution of Christians by Rome, which indeed did wax great. Some of the stars, or leaders would be James who was killed early on, Stephen shortly after, and even Paul amongst others.

Ch8 vs 11. "Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down."

Cowles makes a pretty good case that this can be made to fit AE IV. I will not dispute this at this time. We will wait to deal with this one until later verses shed further light on this.

I will detail how this fits into the Roman view, and move on.

"magnify himself even to the prince of the host."

This text fits well into the crucifixion of Christ, who is the prince of hosts in more way than one. He is the prince of the heavenly hosts of angels. He is also the prince, ruler, or head of the saints on earth.

"and by him the daily sacrifice will was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down."

AD 70 soldiers under Titus destroyed the temple in Jerusalem terminating it's services.

AD 130's Hadrian constructed a pagan temple in Jerusalem, renamed the city, and forbid the Jews ever to live in the city.

In another sense, Christian Rome took away, or obscured the "daily" or "continual" sacrifice of Christ from his followers. Confessions to priests, penance, indulgences, and Mary worship were all substitutes given to the people rather than having them just come to Christ as their heavenly high priest.