pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

To be able to claim that the Book of Daniel contains "bad history", one needs to demonstrate some kind of proof. This should include eliminating other possible or likely possibilities. One cannot rationally make this claim based entirely upon ignorance. That is what you have done. Now, ignorance as we have seen is ample enough rational for some to be "skeptical". But not for a claim of "bad history"

I have clearly detailed two very possible scenarios that would work quite well with ALL of the accounts that we have from this period. All you have been able to come up with are arguments of ignorance and omission. Well, that's good enough for a skeptic. That's why I relinquished any claim to that title many pages ago. I could not maintain that I am a rational person, and live up to your standards as a skeptic at the same time. 

I cannot prove that things did happen as Daniel claims, and you cannot prove they did not. Like it or not, history is not usually kind enough to leave us with this kind of proof.

As far as prejudice, and believing what one wants to believe, you have demonstrated a strong inclination to play that game repeatedly. Let's not keep parroting the old "pot and kettle" stuff.

The honest claim you should be making is that you personally question Daniel's accounts of history, or Daniel's accounts have not yet been proven to be correct. Even though over time things that once were thought to be errant in Daniel have now been proven to be historical fact.

I am ready to go on and agree to disagree on this one. Otherwise we will just continue to go around in circles.

 

If you go back and read all the details I presented on Daniel as compared to documented history you will see that there are not just this 1 little incident you decided to focus upon but several. As I'm tired of playing the game of argue and repeat over and over please just go on and finish your arguments.

I'm especially interested in how you relate Daniel to the RCC and the popes working your way to the present.

After you do that feel free to present your summary and final arguments. In that final argument you can present how "things that once were thought to be errant in Daniel have now been proven to be historical fact."

I've been clear throughout this thread I do not accept Daniel as prophetic. I have several times made clear that is my opinion and have given documented links as well as books to support my views.

I do not accept magic as based in reality. Daniel has magic in it's  story telling, therefore I see it as creative writing or story telling to present hope for the despondent Jews in the 2nd century BCE. A point I emphasized quoting Bart Ehrman's book, Forged.

I will be traveling for the next few weeks and will only have 3G access and I'm not taking my books along so any response I give until mid August will be very short.

I have addressed every detail of history that you brought up. This was the last one. You have held on to this one like a blind bull dog. Simply put, the Berossus account could well have happened, and since he said Nebudchadnezzar headed back across the desert instead of along the Euphrates, he would have been pretty far south of the area of Hamath. That could likely have put him in the area of Jerusalem. The captives he took could have included Daniel and his friends.

I'm just making it clear that there is "no bad history" in Daniel. Only in the mind of the skeptic. That false claim would easily influence a reader to make a false conclusion about the Book of Daniel.

I will move on now. But I will not remain silent while false, unsupported claims like this are being made.

Have you addressed every detail? Maybe you should go back and look at that before you do your summary. There are many loose ends you tried to hide. And you can count on them coming back to haunt you.

There are other scenarios that fit the accounts of ABC 5, Berossus and the 2 versions in kings and Chronicles that don't require Daniel to be written in the 6th century.

For example-

King Neb goes into Syria after the battle at Karkemish. His army pursues the Egyptian army and allies including Judahite troops, Syrian troops that were auxiliaries as they were vassals. They are chased all the way to Pelusium at the Egyptian border 20 or so miles from the Nile delta, according to Josephus in book 10 Chapter 6 - http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-10.htm that's how far he got. He also claimed here that he did not go into Judah. This alone should discredit your position that Daniel was taken captive in 605 BCE following the original invasion. Josephus does not mention here captives taken of the Jews either at this point. Also read on what happens later.

Daddy dies. Regardless where Neb was in Palestine he would have desert to cross to get home. Look at a map of Iraq and note where the city of Babylon was located.

He returns after being crowned and gets tribute from the various kingdoms.

The writer of Daniel knows of these accounts and is aware of captives being taken after Jehoiakim revolts and Jehiochin becomes king, including the king and his family but this is in 597 BCE. This is where the "royal seed" comment is from in Daniel 1, an error by the writer of Daniel.

You conveniently ignore Josephus' account here but use other references including his version of Berossus. Perhaps so you can cloud the issue and blow smoke.

So, no Neb did not go to Jerusalem after the battle as in your created fiction according to Josephus, he did not.

But since I'd like to get this over before the 2012 election I'll let it go for now or we'll still be on this then.

Gramps not to worry, you have said quite alot of wild crazy stuff in this thread that is completely unsupported.

 

I like how you try to wiggle out of things by constantly changing your position and misquoting sources.

At first you held doggedly to the position that Nebuchadnezzar stayed far to the North and was no where near Judea.

Now you admit he went as far South as Egypt.

You also make the false assertion that Berosus claimed that Nebuchadnezzar "did not go to Jerusalem".

Here's the quote concerning Nebuchadnezzar he "took all of Syria, as far as Pelusium, excepting Judea".

Note that Berosus does NOT claim that Nebuchadnezzar did not go into Judea, only that he did not conquer or take that territory.

Also note the geography. Nebuchadnezzar would have had to travel North and West from Pelusium to go around the delta and return to Babylon. Interestingly Judea and Jerusalem are North and West of Pelusium.

Nebuchadnezzar could well have been in the process of taking control of that land when he got word of his father's death. All Berossus knew is that Judea was not conquered at that time.

Still no bad history required.

Since you always like to have the Jewish perspective, Rashi, a noted and respected Jewish scholar has a slightly different view. Rashi states that he believes Daniel 1:1 "refers to the third year of Jehoiakim's rebellion, which was within his eleventh year".

The original text the definition includes "sovereignty" which would apply the meaning Rashi has pointed out.

You still make the irrational mistake of doggedly sticking to some biblical translators interpretation of the text. We have many examples of errors made by bible translators.

 

My point exactly. From the acounts we have to work with from that time in history we do not know what did or did not happen. We have a few facts that seem to be certian. The rest is speculation. One cannot claim "bad history" based upon our own ignorance. That is not rational.

All throughout this thread you have done exactly that, made claims that "you know exactly what happened." Go back and read what you have said.

We have a few facts as you say, the problem is what you consider facts is many times speculation.

Simplified list of Facts -

1- Nebuchadnezzar attacked the Egyptians and beat them.

2- He returned to Babylon and was crowned king.

3-Judah at some point rebelled and a number of captives were taken. As to how many the accounts differ.

4-Judah again rebels and has it's ass handed to it. Babylon strips it of the capability to rebel taking more captives.

5-Nebuchadnezzar dies.

6-There are several kings after Nebuchadnezzar.

7-Nabonidus is made king after a coup.

8-Nabonidus exhibited strange behavior at times and was at odds with the priests of Marduk due to his worship primarily of the Moon god Sin.

9-The Persians take Babylon and depose Nabonidus. His ultimate fate is unknown.

10-The Persians rule until Alexander the Great beats Darius III.

11-Alexander dies in 323 BCE

12-His empire is divided among his generals with warfare between them.

13-Eventually Antiochus IV is king of the Seleucid kingdom.

14-The Jews rebel against Antiochus IV's heavy handed tactics and eventually become independent.

15-The Jews fight among themselves between 2 groups eventually bringing in Rome under Pompey.

16-Eventually Herod is made king of Judea as a client kingdom to Rome.

17-Herod dies.

18-Judea is put under direct control of Rome and taxed.

19-The Jews rebel and are subsquently devastated by the power of Rome ending with the destruction of Jerusalem.

20-The Jews rebel again and are virtually eliminated by Hadrian. Jews are sold as slaves for the price of a camel.

End story.

The account in the book of Daniel is not in conflict with the accounts that we have to work with through secular or biblical sources.

Really? Go back and look at the facts. Anywhere you depart from "the facts" you speculate. You have done a whole lot of that here.

I suppose that it would depend upon just where Nebuchadnezzar was when he received news of his fathers death. If he were already heading back through the Judain route when he got the news he may have already made a stop at Jerusalem.

This we have no way of knowing.

Exactly we do not know where Neb was but you make claims throughout this thread he did such and such. In reality, there is nothing to support your speculation. Daniel's writing is not per se facts. It is a story. This story has fantasy and many omissions from what we know of "the facts". You have chosen to consider Daniel factual without any support. The support you claim goes beyond the list of facts I gave above. It in fact omits many of them such as Nabonidus and the real cause of Babylon falling to Persia. But you consider that to be unimportant to the Jews. If not for Nabonidus' inattention to his kingdom Persia would not have basically walked in as they did. But this is not important to you. One of many facts you ignore.

Once again, I do not claim that I know where Neb went, and what he did. I just point out some "possibilities".

Yes, Nebonidus' actions were "important to the Jews" as they aided in the fall of Babylon. But many things that were "important to the Jews" is not to be found anywhere in Hebrew scripture.

It is highly irrational to try to make the Book of Daniel into a history book. The stories told have nothing to do with Nebonidus.

Once again you are making arguments of ignorance and ommission. Volumns of books would not be enough to cover all of the "arguments of ommission" that some "skeptic" may try to use to cast doubt on the books historocity.

The Book of Daniel covers two basic themes. Divine intervention, and prophecy. It does not detail the affairs of the government. To expect this is just plain "silly".

 

gramster wrote:

Once again, I do not claim that I know where Neb went, and what he did. I just point out some "possibilities".

Yes, Nebonidus' actions were "important to the Jews" as they aided in the fall of Babylon. But many things that were "important to the Jews" is not to be found anywhere in Hebrew scripture.

It is highly irrational to try to make the Book of Daniel into a history book. The stories told have nothing to do with Nebonidus.

Once again you are making arguments of ignorance and ommission. Volumns of books would not be enough to cover all of the "arguments of ommission" that some "skeptic" may try to use to cast doubt on the books historocity.

The Book of Daniel covers two basic themes. Divine intervention, and prophecy. It does not detail the affairs of the government. To expect this is just plain "silly".

 

Perhaps you need to use the words "in my opinion" when you make your claims, generally that is not what you have done.

The entire point of your Daniel discussion was to show us non-believers that Daniel was prophecy was it not?

You have attempted to show throughout this thread that this prophecy is documented by history.

Do you really want me to go back and find all of your comments where you have made claims that Daniel documented accurate history?

You are the one that has tried to make Daniel a history book. Granted you have tried to show it was like Hari Seldon a charactor in Isaac Assimov's foundation series where something called psycho-history predicted on a Galactic scale all the events that would occur.

These kind of predictions or prophecies are found only in Sci-Fi.

 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Once again, I do not claim that I know where Neb went, and what he did. I just point out some "possibilities".

Yes, Nebonidus' actions were "important to the Jews" as they aided in the fall of Babylon. But many things that were "important to the Jews" is not to be found anywhere in Hebrew scripture.

It is highly irrational to try to make the Book of Daniel into a history book. The stories told have nothing to do with Nebonidus.

Once again you are making arguments of ignorance and ommission. Volumns of books would not be enough to cover all of the "arguments of ommission" that some "skeptic" may try to use to cast doubt on the books historocity.

The Book of Daniel covers two basic themes. Divine intervention, and prophecy. It does not detail the affairs of the government. To expect this is just plain "silly".

 

Perhaps you need to use the words "in my opinion" when you make your claims, generally that is not what you have done.

The entire point of your Daniel discussion was to show us non-believers that Daniel was prophecy was it not?

You have attempted to show throughout this thread that this prophecy is documented by history.

Do you really want me to go back and find all of your comments where you have made claims that Daniel documented accurate history?

You are the one that has tried to make Daniel a history book. Granted you have tried to show it was like Hari Seldon a charactor in Isaac Assimov's foundation series where something called psycho-history predicted on a Galactic scale all the events that would occur.

These kind of predictions or prophecies are found only in Sci-Fi.

 

 

Maybe you are older than me. A bit more forgetful at least. All along the way I have been making it very clear when something is my own interpretation, or one possible scenario. I have also held that secular history has been shown to be sketchy at best. And yes, that is exactly what I have done.

Scanty fragments of cuneform tablets is all we have relating to Nebuchadnezzar's military campaign against Egypt in 568/567 BC.

One would not expect to find much if anything about such a humiliating affliction that Nebuchadnezzar went through. This is not the kind of thing a Babylonian king would go around bragging about.

Fortunately we do have one tablet that speaks of a period of time where Nebuchadnezzar seems to have had some kind of bout with mental illness that was pretty bad. It is in the Brittish Museum #BM 34113.

~  rip ~
Even though this tablet is in pretty bad shape, and the beginning and or end of several lines are not readable, and several lines completely missing or not readable, this still gives a pretty vivid portrayal of mental illness. It's too bad we do not have the whole tablet in tact.
~rip~
Yes, there is a secular source to help confirm the madness of Nebuchadnezzar.

Now it seems to me that if the book of Daniel were indeed written in the 6th century BC it would likely contain some information that we would not have known about. Otherwise I would expect that the writer maybe just learned his stuff from the existing history books.

I have no idea how a 2nd century BC author would have known about Belshazzar. We do not find mention of him in any accounts of Biblical or Secular history outside of Daniel excepting the clay tablets that were not uncovered at that time.

And why would this 2nd century BC author have a man named Darius in a leading role right after the fall of Babylon. From all biblical accounts the only Darius mentioned is clearly decades after Cyrus. One cannot read those accounts without this being crystal clear.

A 2nd century BC author would almost certainly have gone straight to Cyrus.

When one looks into the historocity of Daniel there is nothing conflicting with known facts. What we seem to have is simply ingorance on our part of events known only by someone living at that time.

Our lack of knowledge of 6th century BC history, and lack of understanding of the ancient languages do not add up to bad history on the part of Daniel.

You seem to have a real hard time understanding this. Therefore you keep ingnorantly making the claim that the Book of Daniel is simply "full" of "bad history". That has not been shown to be true at all.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Now that you have lied and thought so much of that lie you sent it twice, is there a reason why anyone should continue with you?

This is so sad. When you don't have anything intellegent to say you always revert back to calling someone a liar. And that seems to be quite often.

 

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Once again, I do not claim that I know where Neb went, and what he did. I just point out some "possibilities".

Yes, Nebonidus' actions were "important to the Jews" as they aided in the fall of Babylon. But many things that were "important to the Jews" is not to be found anywhere in Hebrew scripture.

It is highly irrational to try to make the Book of Daniel into a history book. The stories told have nothing to do with Nebonidus.

Once again you are making arguments of ignorance and ommission. Volumns of books would not be enough to cover all of the "arguments of ommission" that some "skeptic" may try to use to cast doubt on the books historocity.

The Book of Daniel covers two basic themes. Divine intervention, and prophecy. It does not detail the affairs of the government. To expect this is just plain "silly".

 

Perhaps you need to use the words "in my opinion" when you make your claims, generally that is not what you have done.

The entire point of your Daniel discussion was to show us non-believers that Daniel was prophecy was it not?

You have attempted to show throughout this thread that this prophecy is documented by history.

Do you really want me to go back and find all of your comments where you have made claims that Daniel documented accurate history?

You are the one that has tried to make Daniel a history book. Granted you have tried to show it was like Hari Seldon a character in Isaac Assimov's foundation series where something called psycho-history predicted on a Galactic scale all the events that would occur.

These kind of predictions or prophecies are found only in Sci-Fi.

 

 

Maybe you are older than me. A bit more forgetful at least. All along the way I have been making it very clear when something is my own interpretation, or one possible scenario. I have also held that secular history has been shown to be sketchy at best. And yes, that is exactly what I have done.

pjts wrote:

Really now, do you want me to go back and get each time that you misconstrued fact and opinion?

Here's a recent one for example -

Gramps post 1162 wrote:

Scanty fragments of cuneiform tablets is all we have relating to Nebuchadnezzar's military campaign against Egypt in 568/567 BC.

One would not expect to find much if anything about such a humiliating affliction that Nebuchadnezzar went through. This is not the kind of thing a Babylonian king would go around bragging about.

Fortunately we do have one tablet that speaks of a period of time where Nebuchadnezzar seems to have had some kind of bout with mental illness that was pretty bad. It is in the Brittish Museum #BM 34113.

~  rip ~
Even though this tablet is in pretty bad shape, and the beginning and or end of several lines are not readable, and several lines completely missing or not readable, this still gives a pretty vivid portrayal of mental illness. It's too bad we do not have the whole tablet in tact.
~rip~
Yes, there is a secular source to help confirm the madness of Nebuchadnezzar.

Actually, as I showed you in a followup post this tablet could mean almost anything, see my comments in post 1167.
Your statements do not suggest that these are your opinions, they claim to be facts though the tablet is missing so much it could be referring to anyone. You however take it far beyond what can be read and made claims it was confirmation of Daniel.

After I pointed out this could mean anything, you agreed in post 1170 it is not proof positive Neb was insane, but still claim it is a strong possibility and agrees with your test of Daniel.

I can spend some time going through this entire thread post by post and locate each and every time you have done this. Here's a few where you tried to stretch the known.

You did some recent fact bending in posts 1215 and 1222. For example you say this is what we know.... however, we don't know exactly what Necho's killing of Josiah had on Judah, we don't know the accuracy of Berossus, as presented by Josephus, we don't know if there were Jewish captives or not, and if there were whether they were mercenaries, auxiliaries, or taken in Judah. But you make it as a fact or something we know here.
 

My how desperate you have become. I clearly stated that the tablet indicates that Nebuchadnezzar "seems to have had" some king of bout with mental illness. And once you demonstrated your ability to puzzle fit in another scenario, I agreed that one could interpret this tablet other ways. How desperate you have become to throw this one at me.

In post 1215 I referred to Judea being in a weakend state due to the fact that they had become subservient to Egypt. Necho had killed one king, taken another captive, and installed a king of their choosing. This is usually not an indication that a country like Judea was at its peak. You probably disagree.

In post 1222 I started out with "here is what I believe probably happened". I could have added the words "in my opinion", but that would be redundant.

My reference to Berossus included "We have claims by Berossus although not collaborated". Berossus has already been discussed. I do not intend to write a paragraph about the writings of Berossus every time I use a quote.

These lame attacks seem to indicate that you really don't have any good answers left.

gramster wrote:

Now it seems to me that if the book of Daniel were indeed written in the 6th century BC it would likely contain some information that we would not have known about. Otherwise I would expect that the writer maybe just learned his stuff from the existing history books.

pjts wrote:

And it would seem it would correlate with the history of Babylon, and Persia

as well. Which it does not do as you have been shown over and over.  It's not very clear as we have at length discussed, though you seem to see it as perfectly aligned.

As I have shown, there is nothing in the Book of Daniel that is in direct conflict with any well established historical facts. This exists in your own imagination.

gramster wrote:

I have no idea how a 2nd century BC author would have known about Belshazzar. We do not find mention of him in any accounts of Biblical or Secular history outside of Daniel excepting the clay tablets that were not uncovered at that time.

And why would this 2nd century BC author have a man named Darius in a leading role right after the fall of Babylon. From all biblical accounts the only Darius mentioned is clearly decades after Cyrus. One cannot read those accounts without this being crystal clear.

A 2nd century BC author would almost certainly have gone straight to Cyrus.

When one looks into the historocity of Daniel there is nothing conflicting with known facts. What we seem to have is simply ingorance on our part of events known only by someone living at that time.

Our lack of knowledge of 6th century BC history, and lack of understanding of the ancient languages do not add up to bad history on the part of Daniel.

pjts wrote:

The tablets may have been discussed in other writing which has been lost for example. There is much we didn't know about Akkadians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians that has come to light in the last 150 years. That accounts have disappeared of many ancients is well known, just look at Berrossus, we have his accounts by Josephus and others, not by him.

Daniel may not have had the kings list from Mesopotamia as did someone like Berossus at some point for one. Daniel used the most well known Persians in his text as one possible explanation perhaps.

But we obviously will not agree, please go finish or we will argue forever.

Just which "kings list" is it that names Belshazzar as coregent, or Darius before Cyrus, or excludes Nabonidus. No, Daniel could not have been going off of a kings list. Oh, excuse me IN MY OPINION. I am sure that a "Skeptic" like you will disagree.

It is also MY OPINION that the writer of Daniel could not have gotten his information from the OT writings since Darius is clearly much later than Cyrus in all the passages that mention him.

No, the most obvious answer would be that Daniel lived in Babylon in the 6th century BC, and wrote from 1st hand knowledge. And he knew more than we do even now. IN MY OPINION.

gramster wrote:

You seem to have a real hard time understanding this. Therefore you keep ingnorantly making the claim that the Book of Daniel is simply "full" of "bad history". That has not been shown to be true at all.

 

pjts wrote:

I have a hard time grasping how you think. You have moments of clarity but always ignore them to continue in your misadventure in the land of never was. What you seem to do is consider Daniel as accurate and look for things to validate it. When there is nothing to substantiate it, you still see it as fact. Facts must be proved.

Show me Daniel in Babylonian clay tablets. Written communication from the 3rd in charge of Babylon and I'll  consider he may have basis.

I dont' see anything to substantiate there even was a guy named Daniel at all.

We have exactly what one would expect to find. Very little. Pretty much the same as we have of so many other equally notable figures from that period of history.

And we're back to the meat of your argument.

"Daniel had to be writing about Rome because Daniel MUST be prophecy!"

Rebuttal response to part 1 of Gramps Summary

 

Rebuttal to your post 1268  only, not my summary.

 

I find it interesting that you didn't actually give a summary of your position, rather you weakly attempt to summarize the arguments against it.

1-Your stated objective for this discussion was:  If Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE and if it has prophecies that came true, only a god could have supplied the writer with the information.

So you have 3 points to prove:

1-Was Daniel written in the 6th century BCE?

2-Does it contain prophecies that came true?

3-Could only a god have supplied the information to the writer if both 1 & 2 are true?

If this book was authored before Alexander the Great, one would be hard pressed to deny the prophetic aspects and therefore the existence of a God that can see into the future.

You make several assumptions in this one statement attempting to roll everything into one. You assume that it has prophecies that are clear and obvious that are indisputable. You also discount other possible ways that a writer might gain information and therefore conclude that only a god supplied the information.  Let's see if you follow a path to prove any of this in your argument.

To deny the prophetic aspects of The Book of Daniel one must do two things. First they need to make a strong case for a late date of authorship. Being that we have copies as early as the 2nd century one cannot make much of a case that it was written later than that.

 

Rather than arguing your point or presenting the proof it was written in the 6th century, you take the approach to prove by negation it was. The point being, what evidence is being negated? Is there even evidence?

Since the book cannot have been written later than mid 2nd century skeptics have to deny that any of the powers portrayed in Daniel are representative of Rome.

So that is what has been done.

 

Does this somehow relieve you as the positive debater to show proof that the writer dated to the 6th century BCE?

Quote:

No, this is just part of the reasoning process. See above.

Gramps wrote:

First we have the Great Image in Daniel 2 (typo corrected).

[qoute=pjts] 

Actually this was in Daniel 2, you pretty much ignored Daniel 1 until we discussed Prince Nebuchadrezzar's adventures in the land of Hatti.

 

Gramps wrote:

Classic Interpretation:

1. Head of Gold - Babylon

2. Chest and Arms of Silver - "Medo Persia"

3. Belly and Thighs - The "Grecian" Empire

4. Legs of Iron - Rome

5. Feet of Iron and Clay - Divided Roman Empire

6. Stone cut without hands that strikes the image on the feet and fills the whole earth - The Kingdoom of God

The first thing the skeptic must do is find a way to divide one of the above powers into two to elliminate Rome as a predicted power. This is done by dividing the "Medo Persian" power into Media and than Persia.

There are two problems with this. First, Media did not exist as a seperate power at the time of the fall of Babylon, and therefore can not be a seperate power that followed Babylon. Second, the author of Daniel clearly saw Media and Persia as one power, not two as noted clearly especially in chapter eight.

But the skeptic will come up with some flimsy explanations to try to get around this. As he must.

pjts wrote:

 

As the text of Daniel can be interpreted in various ways, it obviously does not aide you in proof that the writer could have only wrote in the 6th century BCE.

As argued in our discussion, the scenario can be shown to fit the Antiochus/Seleucid powers. In doing so, one does not need to leave the world of reality as you have done. If magic and Sci-Fi were normal observed daily occurrences, then there may be a basis to consider another approach. As these events are foreign to the world we occupy, they detract from taking the approach you take. The approach using Antiochus/Seleucid shows that the powers fit suitably into the storyline, without accepting magic and fantasy as possible. As previously mentioned, you must prove that magic and fantasy have possibilities in our reality as it is part of the storyline. You, instead take the position that the god can do anything as indicated by the prophecies being shown true, therefore the magic must be true as well. This is circular reasoning. As alternatives are possible that do not require acceptance of magic occurring, the argument fails on your part.

Once again you demonstrate the real motovation behind all your arguments. That being the refusal to believe in God. Take that away, and the true interpretation becomes obvious.

pjts wrote:

As discussed regarding Daniel 2, not Daniel 1:

1-Head of Gold- interpretated as Babylon -Agree

2-Chest and arms of silver-

a)Mede & Persians - if the empire after Babylon, not inferior as claimed in Dan 2:39

b)Medes only - clearly inferior to Babylon

Either view makes no difference and the result is the same, still leaving out Rome without a problem.

3-Belly & thighs -

either one can be said to rule over all the known world (to them anyway) v39

a)Persians

b)Greece - Alexander the Great

4-Legs of Iron - feet of iron/clay mix - as the breakup had several strong kingdoms and several weak kingdoms it fits.

a)Alexander-Greece - and the 4 kingdoms that breakup. As they intermingled, as we extensively discussed it also fits. v40-43

5-Feet of clay - the broken up empire, see above.

6-The kingdom of god is Judea ruled by the Jews after Antiochus.

Forever in this case was an obvious ploy to build the hope of the Jews, after all it was Apocalyptic writing.

Please note, it does not matter in the end if the Medes-Persians are looked at as 2 different kingdoms or 1. If we take your view, the Persians would be considered a weaker kingdom (the 3rd) than Babylon, which is against history as Persia was far stronger and lasted 200+ years.

First let's take a look at the text concerning this 2nd power.

One only take a brief visit to their lexicon to examine the text and likely interpretations.

Daniel 2:39 "After, will arise, kingdom, another, inferior (or earth), to thee (or more than)"

An alternate and also correct interpretation to this would be "After thee will arise another kingdom who will conquer more earth than thee."

This interpretation does not take any more liberties than any of the other translations.

Also it is not unlikely that in the eyes of Nebuchadnezzar, Persia would have been inferior to Neb's great Babylon, which was quite something in that day.

If you do not try to jam Media in as the 2nd power you are than trying to make the following case.

1. Babylon   2. Media and Persia   3. "Greece"   4. Divided "Greece"   5. Divided "Greece"   6. Kingdom of God

It seems to me as if we have one to many "divided Greece's" here???

1st, Media cannot be #1. It did not follow Babylon. 2nd, divided "Greece" cannot hardly follow itself.

Once again the master puzzlefitter works his magic in attempts to deny the existence of God.

The Roman view does not need to "work magic". All one has to do is logically follow the major powers in history.

Gramps wrote:

 

Next we go to chapter 7 where the skeptic must pretty much do the same thing.

In chapter 7 we have 4 beasts that like the image in chapter 1 represent 4 kingdoms.

Classic Interpretation:

1. Lion with Eagles Wings - Babylon

2. Bear Raised up on one side - Media and Persia

3. Leopard with 4 wings and 4 heads - The Grecain Empire

4. A dreadful and terrible beast with 10 horns - Rome

5. A little horn that becomes great - A persecuting power that arises out of the Roman Empire

6. One like the son of man coming to the ancient of days who receives an everlasting kingdom - Christs 2nd coming

Here once again Media and Persia are split up into two seperate powers. We have the same problems here as with chapter one, but they are ingored.

We have one more problem. That of symbolism. As we shall see in chapter 8 where two powers are named specifically.

pjts wrote:

Again, it matters little if the Medes-Persians are split or not. See the following.

Method a) split, method b) not split. Result is the same as in a) or b) as the Seleucid empire or the Greek empire can be the 4th beast that splits up and has 10 horns.

1-Lion with Eagles wings - Babylon - agree

2-Bear raised up -

a)Medes

b)Medes-Persians

3-Leopard with 4 wings-

a) Persians

b)Alexander

4-Dreadful terrible beast with 10 horns -

a) Macedonia(Greece) - from which the Seleucid kingdom comes from. 

b)Seleucid Empire

Either way the 10 horns are 10 kings of the Seleucids.

The Seleucid Empire was the 4th Beast, as it was exceedingly powerful, at least to them.

The 10 horns that rose up in this empire were:

1- Seleucus

2- Antiochus I

3- Antiochus II

4- Seleucus II

5- Seleucus III

6- Antiochus III

7- Seleucus IV

8- Demetrius

9- Heliodorus

10-Seleucus IV's infant son

5- The little horn is Antiochus IV - see all the arguments how he fits, see Cowles discussions at length how he fits - http://www.archive.org/details/ezekieldanielwit00cowlrich

see posts 501, 527, 648 and several others.

Once again I have to discount Media as a seperate successive power, because it was not.

Once again one must ignore the fact that the Seleucid Empire was still just one of the 4 divisions of the Macedonian Empire or "Greece". It was not the next successive empire on the scene.

The next successive empire was The Roman Empire, and it truly fits the description of this text. One need not make the excuse that to the author "this power appeared to be great".

I would prefer to use the power that actually fits the description of the text rather than having to come up with a lame excuse why it does not.

pjts wrote:

6- One like the son of man - you claim this is the Jesus character's 2nd coming, though you haven't even proved the 1st. As I showed this term son of man was used extensively throughout the OT, you have put forth your guess or fantasy here. See post 640.

The phase of "the son of man" is used repeatedly in the OT and does not have the connotation you are grasping at to allude to Jesus or the messiah, well over 100 times and the majority deal with Ezekiel. See Ezekiel 2:1,3,6,8,3:1,3,4,10,17,25,4:1,16,5:1,6:2,7:2,8:5,6,8,12,15,17,11:2

Even in the writing, Daniel is called, O son of man. see Dan 8:17.

Interesting, in Daniel 7:13 we have "a son of man" coming in the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days. In Daniel 7:14 is given an ever lasting kingdom, dominion, and glory. All peoples, nations, and languages shall serve this kingdom. It will not pass away or be destroyed.

Just who is this "son of man", who travels in the clouds of heaven, and approaches the "Ancient of Days" or God??

Just what is this "son of man" doing? And what is his role here?

I do not know of any ordanary person that travels about in the clouds of heaven. And what was he doing if not receiveing a kingdom and glory from God?

Maybe you have an alternate person or "son of man" here?? Or an alternate interpretation?

 

Gramps wrote:

 

We have one more problem. That of symbolism. As we shall see in chapter 8 where two powers are named specifically.

First in ch 8 we have a ram with 2 horns, one higher than the other. This power is named as "Media and Persia". Here the author clearly sees Media and Persia as a single power. One horn being higher than the other symbolizes Persias dominance over Media. And also symbolically coincides with the bear "raised up on one side" in chapter 7.

pjts wrote:

I went into great detail on this showing that no problem existed, plus y'all wanted to try 2 different methods to look at this beasts.

The ram represents both the Medes and the Persians as shown with the horns. The smaller horn is the Medes, the larger horn the much more successful kingdom of the Persians.

1 beast representing 2 kingdoms. 

Agree

Gramps wrote:

 

Second in ch 8 we have a goat with a notable horn that is broken and replaced by 4 notable horns. This power is named as "Greece". And this coincides symbolically with the Leopard with 4 heads and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolizing the incredible swiftness in which Alexander the Great "conquered the world".

pjts wrote:

I so love how you jump around. Why not discuss the swiftness of his conquest in regard to chapter 7?

The goat is given as Alexander and the 4 horns are the 4 kingdoms that it splits into.

No problem, we agree on this one.

It goes on to describe the "nasty bugger" Antiochus IV, on which we do not agree.

 

Gramps wrote:

Here the skeptic is not only making Media a seperate power following Babylon which it was not, but also denying the obvious symbolic parallels between the beasts.

pjts wrote:

When exactly to date the rise of the Medes as a major power is the question? It began to some extent at the same time as Babylon, when as allies they conquered Assyria. It completed with the conquest of Lydia in 585 BCE, which was after Nebuchadrezzar was king.

The smaller horn indicates as in Daniel 2 a kingdom that was less than Babylon. It did exist until 550 BCE when Cyrus conquered it. Nebuchadrezzar was king from 605 BCE. The Medes went on campaigns to expand their rule in 612 after allying with Babylon against Assyria under King Cyaxares. He expanded the kingdom in Northern Mesopotamia and began a war against Lydia. See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyaxares

Following him was king Astyages who concluded the war against Lydia. See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astyages

All of the land that they conquered was far less than the Persians, thus making them a lessor kingdom. As this rise began after Assyria was conquered and near the beginning of King Nebuchadrezzar's, at least the conquest of Lydia, it might be seen as coming after Babylon's rise to greatness, though it appears concurrent to me.

Yes, Media was lessor than Persia, as indicated by the smaller horn. But as you say, not succesive to Babylon. 

Gramps wrote:

So the skeptic will have to try to confuse the obvious and puzzle fit square pegs into round holes which he does.

pjts wrote:

Not really, The Medes kingdom was inferior to the Persians which is shown in Dan 2:39 and represented as such with a small horn on the goat.

So it is with much puzzle fitting and numerous lame excuses we seem to have made these texts almost fit into a scenario that does not have to validate God.



 

  

 

 

 

gramster wrote:

Not really, common sense, which you have already stated you don't believe in, leads us to a few logical conclussions.

 

Really, when did I ever say that?

If you can't show me where I said I don't believe in common sense then you are  on purpose distorting and lying here.

And if that is so, we are done Gramps.

You can go play by yourself.

Where was it I explicitly said this?

Show me the quote word for word and list the post. 

Critics of the Book of Daniel would have us believe that this book is not what it claims to be. That being a book that details powers and events relevant to God's chosen people down through history, written in the 6th century BC by a man named Daniel.

The claim is that this book was written in the 2nd century BC by an unknown author. And that it was written to encourage and inspire the Jews during their time of distress under AE IV.

I will not go into every detail of the evidences against this view. I will only briefly cover the ones that I view as most compelling.

Once more you begin by negation. Are there no positive pieces of evidence?
1-Is there a 6th century BCE copy? - No
2-Is Daniel mentioned in Babylonian or Persian records? - No
3-Does Daniel really portray the situation in Babylon from the end of Nabonidus' reign through the Conquest of Cyrus? - No
I guess I see why you go immediately on the defensive.

Skeptics would have us believe that the fact that there are no known copies of the Book of Daniel prior to the 2nd century BC when they claim the book was written is somehow evidence of a late date.

Not only that, the book isn't mentioned by writers of the OT, such as Ezra and Nehemiah that wrote after the 6th century BCE. The Daniel character of myth is mentioned in Maccabees, much like mythical heroes from other cultures, but that's it. And that is in books that aren't accepted by most non-Jews or non-Catholics. Gramps mentions the use of the name Daniel further down in his summary by Ezekiel, which i will discuss later in this response.

The fact is that there are practically zero copies of any scripture that dates back much later than that, or of any paper or parchment text of any kind since they do not hold up very well over long periods of time.

So, are you trying to indicate that more of the OT is fantasy/fiction? Another poster on RRS makes the claim that the entire storyline of the Jews was fiction created in the period before, during and after the Maccabees wars. I have always thought he was being extreme, as he comes across as anti-Semitic, but you never know.
The oldest copies of bible pieces are the DSS, dated to mid 2nd century BCE to  30 to 60 CE. As pointed out to you, there were 25+ copies of Enoch and about 8 pieces of Daniel. Does this mean Enoch is also scripture that should be considered? Is Enoch also prophecy?

Linguistics - Some point to the existence of 3 Greek words in Daniel that they claim point to a late date. All three words are musical instruments. One has now been found to have been used as early as the 8th century BC. The other two we have not yet found earlier than the 6th century. Interaction between Grecian peoples and the Babylonians was known to have been in existence at that time, so the interchange of music and culture was likely.

What I find interesting is the fact that a book that was supposed to have been written during a time of Grecian domination ends up having only 3 Greek words in the whole document. One would think that there would be more than three.

I grew up in the Southwest US and as a result my 2nd language is Spanish. In the area I lived easily half the population spoke Spanish as a primary language with English as a secondary. I'm actually a German descendant that speaks no German, other than counting to 5 and I have heard O Christmas tree in German. I read and speak Spanish but I would never attempt any serious writing in it as my Spanish composition is atrocious. I can piece together some Spanish phrases and sentences but I usually screw up the tenses. I can drop in words as replacements for English words at the drop of a hat however. Bart Ehrman, a very well known Bible scholar, reads Hebrew, Greek, and Latin but says he'd never attempt to write in the languages. Even if the writer could understand Greek as in trade Greek, he'd likely know little about composition.

But perhaps you are a language expert and can shred light on how one can write in a language intelligently even if your skill at composition is poor in it. Where do you study language and linguistics?
And the Greek words you speak of were words that were from a later period and not generally used in the period you are claiming for the origin. Though this is furiously debated by believers to be not relevant. It's not like that is what the entire case against Daniel rests upon, it's just another piece that causes doubt of the origin.

See the following book by the Rev S R Driver 'Daniel' 1901 - http://books.google.com/books?id=YC82AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Pay attention to the introduction and his section on the authorship of Daniel. The google ebook is not complete, but the introduction is. If you want all of the book you will have to buy it.

What is more compelling is the Old Persian loan words found in Daniel 3. Interesting this book that was supposed to have been written contains terms that were not understood by those translating the Septuagint. In Chapter 3 Daniel uses the Persian words for "Counselors, treasurers, and Magistrates". Those translating the Septuagint only decades later had no idea what those words meant. They translated them "heads of provinces, those in authority, and rulers of districts".

It is quite clear that the meanings of those words had become lost by the time the Septuagint was translated. Or at least the translators had no idea what they meant. Therefore they "guessed" at the meanings, and were completely off base. This is most amazing that the meanings of these words that were used by the author of the Book of Daniel such a short time earlier would not be known to these translators. And one would think that an author would be using words that the intended readers would be readily familiar with. This just doesn't make any sense.

And why would a 2nd century be using Old Persian terms for government officials instead of Aramaic or Greek. This seems quite unusual. If the Book of Daniel was written in the 6th century BC. Shortly after the fall of Babylonian, they would be in the Persian period of rule. Using the than relevant Persian terms would be quite natural.

So why do people who know no Spanish say Hola? Or nada? Or celebrate Cinco de Mayo?
Why do you buy burritos, tacos, quesadillas, tamales, or carne asada?

If we look at words that have infiltrated the English language there are many from other sources? You think the ancients were different?

Persian was the language used from 538 to 332 BCE throughout the area. Leftover words get used in dialects, you do it.

Persia conquered Babylon in 538-39 BCE. You want us to buy that Daniel was captured in 605 BCE. Even if he was like 20 years old, the Persian period begins 66 years later. He'd be 86 years old, very ancient for the time period. If you want to make him younger than 20, why would he get any respect or consideration in Nebuchadrezzar's court as a teeny brat or a 10 year old? The text goes on to indicate he lived through Cyrus reign and Darius, though you want to make him someone else too. The life expectancy of the time was about 24 years old. That some lived to 80 is true. That even an infected tooth could kill you is true. Or a cut. So we are supposed to buy that Daniel lived 80+ years and wrote the parts utilizing Persian loan words about that time, after Persia conquered Babylon.

The Septuagint was translated in Egypt according to legend somewhere around 250 BCE. The original translation was the 5 books of Moses. As to when the prophets were translated and the rest of the writings is not known. These translators were supposedly 6 from each tribe. So, I thought that 10 tribes were lost by this time, were they? Anyway, there exists differences between the The Septuagint  and the Masoretic text or Hebrew text. Who can say when the Book of Daniel was translated into Greek. As it was of the writings, it was done last according to tradition and legends.

see - http://www.livius.org/se-sg/septuaginta/septuaginta.html
and - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

Further evidence.

The knowledge of Belshazzar and apparently knowing that he was 2nd in command at the time of the fall of Babylon also strongly suggests an early date. Yes, it is "possible", but seems highly unlikely that a 2nd century BC author would have known about Belshazzar. We know of absolutely no historical records of his existence outside of a couple of mentions of him on clay tablets unearthed only recently. None of the historians down through history make any mention of his name. The author of the Book of Daniel did however seem to have very accurate knowledge of him.

We have argued this back and forth. The knowledge of the real king of Babylon seemed to be lost to the writer of Daniel. If he was there he'd have known just why the people especially the priests were so quick to rebel and go over to Cyrus.

That a Crown prince is not much discussed by historians is no surprise. That he was in charge in Babylon possibly affecting the Jews in a memorable way is likely and possible. As we have seen, the records did exist as to Belshazzar by Cyrus, the Babylonian records. Why they weren't included is an unknown. It's like asking why Gilgamesh isn't discussed by the Etruscans. There are many records of history that were not included by everyone if you like to go down that road.

I have studied many areas of ancient history. One area I have spent very little time on in research would by ancient South America. Prior to the 1st century CE I really have no idea what occurred there. Does that mean if someone studied my writing in 1000 years that there was no history for them?

Just because we didn't know until the 19th century about Belshazzar and Nabonidus does not mean that others did not in the past. In fact, Nabonidus is mention by a few such as Josephus if I recall.

The skeptic would have us to believe that the mention of one called "Darius the Meade" is evidence of a late date, and that a 2nd century BC Jewish author just "got a little confused", confusing the Darius in the Bible as the man who conquered Babylon. This one is pretty far out there. One only has to go to their Bible and read every passage that speaks of a Darius. There is no way for anyone to get confused and think that this Darius preceded Cyrus. In every passage the Darius mentioned can not be mistaken to have preceded Cyrus. That's just plain "nuts".

Darius the Meade is likely a made up character in this story telling. We know exactly who administered Babylon from Cyrus. Cyrus appointed his son the crown prince Cambyses as the king of Babylonia, documents are dated with both Cambyses as King of Babylon and Cyrus as King of Lands. There is nothing with the name of Darius the Meade.
See - H. H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel (1935; repr. Cardiff: Univ. of Wales Press Board, 1964), p. 12, 26.

Why did this happen that a 2nd century BCE writer might be confused? Scripture such as Isaiah 13:17,21:2 and  Jeremiah 51:11 and 28 indicate Babylon would be conquered by the Meades. However in reality it was Cyrus the Persian who did so in 539 BCE. Possibly helping to confuse the writer the revolt suppressed in 522 was done by Darius. This involved invading Babylon - see http://www.livius.org/be-bm/behistun/behistun01.html

So the writer confused this Darius as the one that invaded Babylon and decided he must have been a Meade as the prophets indicated the Medes would conquer Babylon. Thus he created a character that did not exist in reality. But, this whole book was Apocalyptic story telling, so why not.

The author of the Book of Daniel obviously had first hand knowledge of one who ruled over Babylon under Cyrus right after the fall. And that man was called Darius the Meade. A 2nd century BC author would have gone straight to Cyrus. He would not likely have stuck someone else into the text. That would not make any sense.

See above, that's is not what is indicated by Cyrus and the records.

The author of Daniel also had knowledge that the city of Shushan was in the province of Elam back in the time of the Chaldean's. By the 2nd century BC the province of Elam did not extend to Shushan, but was restricted to the areas west of the Eulaeus River. Shushan in the 2nd century BC was in the province of Susiana. A 2nd century BC author would not likely have placed Shushan in Elam, but a 6th century BC author would have.

More conjecture on your part. All the writer of Daniel would have had to do to know this would be to read or hear the play The Persians by Aeschylus written in 472 BCE.

3 mentions of Daniel in the book of Ezekiel. Considering the time that the Book of Ezekiel was written, it is not at all unlikely that he would make mention of Daniel, as he would have been well known and respected by the Jews at that time. One can argue that Ezekiel may have been referring to a "different Daniel". And yes, that is possible. It does not seem likely however since there are no other Daniel's known to fit the description at that time. The Daniel mentioned would be expected to have been quite well known for Ezekiel to have referenced him as he did. The Daniel of the Book of Daniel makes perfect sense.

And you got to wonder why Ezekiel who supposedly was also  a captive in Babylon didn't mention one of his fellow captives was one of the Jet Set of his time. Or yeah, that's right, there's 3 mentions of a guy named Daniel in his book. Hmm, why was it spelled different? Let's look at Ezekiel and see what he really said.

1-Ezekiel 14:14 (NIV) - even though these three men, Noah, Daniel and Job were in its midst, by their own righteousness they could only deliver themselves,” declares the Lord GOD.

2-Ezekiel 14:20 (NIV) - even though Noah, Daniel and Job were in its midst, as I live,” declares the Lord GOD, “they could not deliver either their son or their daughter. They would deliver only themselves by their righteousness.

These 1st 2 quotes equate this Daniel in the same light as Noah and Job. Would a priest/prophet so elevate someone of his own time to their level? According to the time lines for Daniel and Ezekiel this would be about 595-587 BCE. Supposedly after Daniel's dream recapture and interpretation. The rest of the events in Daniel had not occurred yet. Why would this Daniel be more important than other Hebrew heroes? Especially if he was still alive and kicking in the extravagant surroundings of the royal palace?

3-Ezekiel 28:3 (NIV) - Behold, you are wiser than Daniel; There is no secret that is a match for you.
There's a footnote indicating Daniel usually is spelled Danel in these verses.

These verses don't discuss anything about the character Daniel as presented in the book of Daniel. Nothing about a Jew being a high official. All that there really is given is a name. If Daniel was such a high official with as much prestige and respect as the book of Daniel indicated, why then didn't Ezekiel discuss him from that view. The person named Danel here is thought to be someone else by most scholars.

In the quote from 28:3, this is from a rant against the king of Tyre. Why would the king of Tyre know of a Jew named Daniel held as a captive in Babylon? He wouldn't, this mention is about someone else.
I could go into just what a poor prophet Ezekiel was, but that can be done another day.

see also regarding Dan'el - James B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1958), pp. 118-132; D. Winton Thomas, ed., Documents from Old Testament Times (London: Thomas Nelson, 1958), pp. 124-128.

Also the 2 references to Daniel in Maccabees would tend to point to an earlier date since a fictional character from a new book would not likely have been mentioned in that way.

I never said there wasn't a mythical hero called Daniel at some point in the past of the Jews. He may have been as real as Herakles and Jason or just as mythical.
As pointed out to you the quote in Maccabees only indicated he knew of the hero name, no more. That doesn't make him the character in the book of Daniel.
1 Mac 2:60 DRO - Daniel in his innocency was delivered out of the mouth of the lions.
Rather the writer used the mythical story in his Apocalyptic story telling. If the writer of 1 Mac knew of the Book of Daniel, there is far more he could have said in regard to Daniel the man.
As to the 2nd occurrence in Maccabees, where is it?

Interesting also how none of the Maccabees or notable figures of the 2nd century BC were named in the Book of Daniel, but several people that lived in the 6th century were. It seems that a 2nd century BC author would have named at least one person from his own century.

This is a method called giving the story telling the power of legitimacy. Those named were major kings in the 6th. After that, no names are given which enables the misinterpretation that you do.

According to the early date view, the messianic age was predicted to ensue at the end of Antiochus IV's reign. This did not happen. Yet in spite of this the book is accepted as canonical by the Septuagint translators and the Qumran Scribes. One would think that it would have been regarded as fiction and not given such a status of honor.

Do you know how many times the Jews predicted the mashiach would come to save them?
The idea of canon was not something that was prevalent at the time.
In the DSS, or the Qumran caves, the scribes valued Enoch 300 per cent more than Daniel, therefore using your logic it must be a prophetic book that should be canon.

No this book was not written in the 2nd century BC. The only reason for one to believe this is because they do not want to acknowledge the prophetic nature of this book and therefore acknowledge the existence of God. This is the real issue.

Nice assertion. But what else can you do? You have presented nothing positive to support the writing dated to the 6th century BCE so you have to try emotional appeal.

It is not rational for one to consider all of the above issues and still hold to the view that this book was written in the 2nd century BC.

All along I have asked for proof of a guy named Daniel from any secular source to show he was such a high official under what is claimed to be 4 kings.

There is nothing to show the man described in the writing is anymore real than Jason Bourne.see - prophecy farce - http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/983front.html 

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

 

gramster wrote:

Not really, common sense, which you have already stated you don't believe in, leads us to a few logical conclussions.

 

Really, when did I ever say that?

If you can't show me where I said I don't believe in common sense then you are  on purpose distorting and lying here.

And if that is so, we are done Gramps.

You can go play by yourself.

Where was it I explicitly said this?

Show me the quote word for word and list the post. 

Goodness. It was several pages back. The statement was made regarding common sense. I believe you said that you don't believe in common sense, but rather "uncommon sense".

If my memory fails, and it was not you who said this, than I apologize.

Maybe it was your resistance to common sense that has led me to think that you were the one who said this.

I will have to search for this. I would not like to wrongly credit this to you if it were someone else.

Until you admit you wromgly attributed the statement, " I don't believe in common sense" we have nothing else to discuss.

Summary Part 3
There are only two interpretations that are found to be viable by most any scholar on the Book of Daniel. One is the Roman Interpretation, and the other is the Grecian Interpretation.

The late date theorists must go with the latter since Rome came after the 2nd century BC and would therefore be prophecy.

Before getting into the Roman Theory (part 9), we must first address some of the alternate issues. First of all, the Grecian Theory to see if they make any sense.

It has already been shown that if one trys hard enough they can slam the square peg into the round hole and puzzle fit Macedonia, or Greece into Rome's rightful position.

But this theory also espouses Antiochus IV to be the little horn in chapter 7 and again in 8. This is essential to the late date theory. If Antiochus IV does not fit, than the whole 2nd century BC authorship theory falls apart.

So let's take a brief look at this.

One will readily see that sticking an individual king into these passages about major powers is nothing but a cheap trick, and that AE IV is completely out of place here.

Daniel 2 symbolizes major empires to "the end".

Daniel 7 symbolizes the same basic major empires.

Daniel 8 leaves out Babylon but still gives us "Medo Persia" and "Greece".

Daniel refers to "Medo Persia" as "Great". "Greece" comes along and tramples "Medo Persia" which would certianly make it at least equal to or "greater" than "Medo Persia".

So far this all makes sense and is rational.

Now along comes the "Little Horn". And it grows "EXCEEDINGLY GREAT".

This would indicate that the author saw this little horn power as becoming greater than either "Medo Persia" or "Greece".

Now I know that there are those who will argue that Antiochus IV was seen as "Great and Terrible" to a 2nd century BC Jew. I do not believe it is rational to believe that AE IV would be seen as greater than the previous two empires.

That is just one of many "lame excuses" one must come up to try to puzzle fit AE IV into the prophecies of Daniel.

The only individual ever symbolized by a horn in Daniel was Alexander the Great. And he was unique in that he founded and embodied the Grecian or Macedonian Empire.

Now for the 4th beast of Daniel 7. This beast follows the Leopard with 4wings and 4 heads which remarkably resembles the male goat in Daniel 8 identified for us as Greece.

Daniel 7:7 "After this I saw...a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet...and it had 10 horns".

This is a description of a major power. We can easily rule out individual and rather insignificant kings and kingdoms.

Daniel 7:8 "I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots...eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words".

The 10 horns and the little horn play an important role in identifying this 4th beast. Helpfully, Daniel is given an explanation specifically addressing these horns.

Daniel 7:23-25 "...the fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom...the ten horns are ten kings who shall rise from this kingdom. And another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings. He shall speak pompous words against the most high, shall persecute the saints...intend to change times and law...the saints shall be given into his hand for a time times and half a time".

Identifying points of the 4th beast:

1. An exceedingly great and powerful kingdom.

2. Had ten kings arise out of its dominion.

3. Had another power arise out of these 10 kingdoms after them that would speak pompous words against God, shall persecute the saints for a time times and half a time, and intend to change times and laws.

The only major kingdom following Greece (or Macedonia) that fits this mold is Rome. Rome was not conquered by a single power, or even an alliance of powers. The Goths or Germanic tribes began moving in and breaking up the Roman empire. These tribes became major nations of Western Europe that still exist today.

Anglo-Saxons became England

Franks became France

Burgundians became Switzerland

Visigoths became Spain

Alamanni became Germany

Suevi became Portugal

Lombards became Italy

Heruli destroyed completely AD 493

Vandals destroyed completely AD 534

Ostrogoths destroyed completely AD 538

These ten tribes correspond to the ten toes on the image, and the ten horns on the beast of Daniel 7. The three tribes that were destroyed are the three kings subdued by the little horn.

Next we will go further into the identifying points of the little horn. This will give us further details helping to confirm Rome as the 4th beast of Daniel 7. After that I will consider any alternate kingdom suggested as this 4th beast and see if it can possibly fit this prophecy.

Furthermore AE IV did not wax exceedingly great to the South, the East, and into the Glorious Land. He did have some initial success into Egypt (South) and was chased out by Rome, he died during his campaign into the East, and his persecution of the Jews led to revolt and eventual Independence.

No this is not talking about "Medo Persia", "Greece", and "little poo poo", the minor king AE IV. This must be referring to a much greater power. One that actually fits the text. The next great empire after the Grecian or Macedonian empire was Rome.

Antiochus IV was only one king among one of the 4 divisions of Alexanders empire. Not a 4th empire.

Antiochus IV does not fit the 2300 day prophecy. One must mistranslate the text, divide the days into two, and add a couple of months to make this one fit.

Antiochus IV did not rise against the "Prince of Princes" as stated in vs 8:25.

In 11:37 it says that "He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor any god." AE IV gave many gifts that benefitted the gods of his fathers.

One must also ignore the importance of gender specific words in the Hebrew Language that clearly indicates that the little horn comes out of one of the 4 winds or directions of the compass rather from one of the 4 horn powers that followed Alexander the Great. This is a clear indication that this is not refering to Antiochus IV.

One can clearly see it is not rational to believe that Antiochus IV a minor individual king is not the major power symbolized by the little horn of Daniel 8. 

pjts wrote:

Gramps wrote:

Summary Part 3
There are only two interpretations that are found to be viable by most any scholar on the Book of Daniel. One is the Roman Interpretation, and the other is the Grecian Interpretation.

The late date theorists must go with the latter since Rome came after the 2nd century BC and would therefore be prophecy.

No. that's not why. Rome is a piece from another puzzle and it doesn't fit into this one.It takes a lot of imagination to fit Rome into the Daniel 2, 7, and 8 dream stories. You have shown me you have that kind of imagination. As I showed in my rebuttal to your part 1, it's not needed. However it seems you need to buy into that which requires fantasy and a dimension of never was when trying to understand the writing of Daniel.

Rubbish!

pjts wrote:

Gramps wrote:

Before getting into the Roman Theory (part 9), we must first address some of the alternate issues. First of all, the Grecian Theory to see if they make any sense.

I have a question.
Are you writing this summary yourself or are you using someone's work?
Your reference to "Part 9" leads me to think you are using someone's work, as does the phrase "we must..."
If that is what you are doing just give me the link and I'll write a response. 
I'm writing my own rebuttals and summary, researching and using references  which I give or have cited previously.
In the 3 summaries you have posted you have given no references at all, why not? Don't you have any?

Like always, I am doing my own work and making my own conclussions. In my summary, most of this information has been discussed, and referenced before. If I post anything "new" that has not been referenced or that is not just common knowledge, I will post a new reference for that.

No I am not just posting someone else's opinion, like Cowles. I am doing my own work.

pjts wrote:

Gramps wrote:

It has already been shown that if one trys hard enough they can slam the square peg into the round hole and puzzle fit Macedonia, or Greece into Rome's rightful position.

If you repeat something often enough can that make it true? This was tried and found to be successful by my distant relatives in Germany before and during WW2.
Instead of playing with interpreting less then obvious ancient writing, where the translations may be in doubt,  why not show some positive outside sources that a guy named Daniel lived and wrote in the 6Th century BCE.
Oh! That's right, nothing shows he actually existed and wrote in the 6th century BCE.

Already answered!

pjts wrote:

Gramps wrote:

But this theory also espouses Antiochus IV to be the little horn in chapter 7 and again in 8. This is essential to the late date theory. If Antiochus IV does not fit, than the whole 2nd century BC authorship theory falls apart.

Does it fall apart?
You sure like to play with specifics when you criticize my views. In your case you can't dwell on that or your interpretation goes POOF. And specifically, you have nothing to tie Daniel into the 6th century BCE.
No government documents, grocery lists, mention by others or anything with Daniel's name on it. This guy was supposedly 3rd in charge for years. Where's the "beef"?
Again the negative presentation. Negation doesn't automatically give you a 6th century writer. You still have to prove "beyond any unreasonable doubt" he wrote in the 6th century BCE. You haven't done anything other than to show why you believe it. You haven't proven it.

Government doc's, Grocery lists, Daniel's name, Photos??? What about Belshazzar who was actually a "king" at the time? Lack of the same would also show that Belshazzar did not exist either.

And this I assume is your example of a rational expectation???

pjts wrote:

gramps wrote:

One will readily see that sticking an individual king into these passages about major powers is nothing but a cheap trick, and that AE IV is completely out of place here.

OK, I won't stick anything into anything.
Cheap trick huh, great rock group.
see - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBQ9dm7zaQU
One can not readily see what you desire here, it calls for guessing games.
See posts 613 and 616, 648  and re read the pages mentioned by Cowles.
See this link here for Cowles book -
http://www.archive.org/stream/ezekieldanielwit00cowlrich#page/n5/mode/2up
see pp 342 to 372 in general for this discussion on Daniel 7 and for more specifics why AE IV is the little horn see pp 342-343, 351-352, and finally 354-372.
see also this link (warning its a Catholic website - Oh No! )
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/is_the_catholic_church_the_little_horn_of_daniel_7.htm

Re read cowles a couple of times. Still the same old stuff I debunked earlier. His interpretation still does not fit. See not antiochus above. Yes, there are some similarities, but upon closer inspection falls apart.

pjts wrote:

Gramps wrote:

Daniel 2 symbolizes major empires to "the end".

To the end of what?To the end of civilization on this planet?To the end of the persecution of the Jews during the period the book was written? Which is the only thing that makes any sense. As Rome ended when the Turks over ran Constantinople in 1453 CE, there is no Roman Empire anymore. Or it ended in 476 CE in the west, both are considered valid.
You have to morph the Roman Empire into the Papal empire. Even if you do, there are 6 billion plus humans and only 1 billion are Catholics. The popes do not rule countries today. The president of the US, Russia, France, the PMs of UK, Italy, Greece and other countries do not derive their power from a god as was the pretense once upon a time. How do you morph that to keep Rome as an Empire until the end?
In post 434 I said-
"As to the Roman Empire - See Warren Treadgold, "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" 1997, 1020 pp
The popular view is Rome lasted from the time the Etruscans were overthrown in 550 BCE until 476 CE. This is true for the Western part.
However, the Roman Empire lasted in some form until the Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453 CE. There remained bits and pieces that still claimed to be the Empire until 1461 when the Turks eliminated every state that could claim descent from it. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire which double dates the end as 476 CE/1453 CE.
I also objected to taking this prophecy past any meaning it had to Jews of the time period. They had no Google and were unaware of the real size of the Earth and of other great civilizations. It is farcical to take the meaning as you do with your Roman theory and European kingdoms that supposedly follow it. That was my whole point in discussing other empires in the past such as China. It was my attempt to show you that this writing was only about the Jews at the time and their limited knowledge of the world and it shouldn't be stretched past that. Cowles goes into this as well in his book. The Jewish writer had nothing to say in regard to the Christian period according to him. It all ended in the 2nd century BCE with the Jews ruling themselves.
But you do anyway, so you can give support using a building built on a sandy foundation. It still sinks. Or is that stinks.
But we'll see where you go with it finally, maybe, hopefully.
In the case of Antiochus and the Seleucids, the end came when the Jews began their own rule. The whole point of Apocalyptic writing was to give hope to the oppressed. And that is what Daniel accomplished as a 2nd century BCE document.

Rome which actually fits, followed by the divided empire - coming soon.

pjts wrote:

Gramps wrote:

Daniel 7 symbolizes the same basic major empires.

No more Rome today. The popes do not rule an empire.

Nobody said they did. No point in arguing with yourself.

pjts wrote:

Gramps wrote:

Daniel 8 leaves out Babylon but still gives us "Medo Persia" and "Greece".

Daniel refers to "Medo Persia" as "Great". "Greece" comes along and tramples "Medo Persia" which would certianly make it at least equal to or "greater" than "Medo Persia".

So far this all makes sense and is rational.

Now along comes the "Little Horn". And it grows "EXCEEDINGLY GREAT".

This would indicate that the author saw this little horn power as becoming greater than either "Medo Persia" or "Greece".

This has already been answered.

You can believe that the writer saw AE IV as greater than "Medo Persia" or "Greece". And you will probably still try to call yourself rational??? I would be highly "skeptical" of anything so contrary to "common sense".

pjts wrote:

gramps wrote:

Now I know that there are those who will argue that Antiochus IV was seen as "Great and Terrible" to a 2nd century BC Jew. I do not believe it is rational to believe that AE IV would be seen as greater than the previous two empires.

That is just one of many "lame excuses" one must come up to try to puzzle fit AE IV into the prophecies of Daniel.

Excuses not required, common sense might be. Is it OK with you if I say that?

Yes, common sense would be nice.

I see that you have a much different definition for common sense than I have. Maybe it is similar to your definiton of a skeptic?

pjts wrote:

gramps wrote:

The only individual ever symbolized by a horn in Daniel was Alexander the Great. And he was unique in that he founded and embodied the Grecian or Macedonian Empire.

 

In your morphed interpretation to puzzle fit it's required. However, Cowles and I have both shown it is not. Each of the 10 horns was a king, but you want them to be nonsensical kingdoms and groups that have no relation to the Jews.I thought only Alexander had a horn as a king, yet, the text and you said other wise in the following post.

Not so fast...

Now for the 4th beast of Daniel 7. This beast follows the Leopard with 4wings and 4 heads which remarkably resembles the male goat in Daniel 8 identified for us as Greece.

Daniel 7:7 "After this I saw...a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet...and it had 10 horns".

This is a description of a major power. We can easily rule out individual and rather insignificant kings and kingdoms.

Daniel 7:8 "I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots...eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words".

The 10 horns and the little horn play an important role in identifying this 4th beast. Helpfully, Daniel is given an explanation specifically addressing these horns.

Daniel 7:23-25 "...the fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom...the ten horns are ten kings who shall rise from this kingdom. And another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings. He shall speak pompous words against the most high, shall persecute the saints...intend to change times and law...the saints shall be given into his hand for a time times and half a time".

Identifying points of the 4th beast:

1. An exceedingly great and powerful kingdom.

2. Had ten kings arise out of its dominion.

3. Had another power arise out of these 10 kingdoms after them that would speak pompous words against God, shall persecute the saints for a time times and half a time, and intend to change times and laws.

The only major kingdom following Greece (or Macedonia) that fits this mold is Rome. Rome was not conquered by a single power, or even an alliance of powers. The Goths or Germanic tribes began moving in and breaking up the Roman empire. These tribes became major nations of Western Europe that still exist today.

Anglo-Saxons became England

Franks became France

Burgundians became Switzerland

Visigoths became Spain

Alamanni became Germany

Suevi became Portugal

Lombards became Italy

Heruli destroyed completely AD 493

Vandals destroyed completely AD 534

Ostrogoths destroyed completely AD 538

These ten tribes correspond to the ten toes on the image, and the ten horns on the beast of Daniel 7. The three tribes that were destroyed are the three kings subdued by the little horn.

Next we will go further into the identifying points of the little horn. This will give us further details helping to confirm Rome as the 4th beast of Daniel 7. After that I will consider any alternate kingdom suggested as this 4th beast and see if it can possibly fit this prophecy.

pjts wrote:

In this quoted post, you morphed from 10 kings into 10 kingdoms when the text never indicated that. Then you went on to make them be nonsensical in relation to the Jews.

Sometimes a little grey matter is required. Consider Daniel 7:17 where the 4 beasts are said to be 4 "kings". The same word "melek" is used here as in Daniel 7:23-25.

Nobody disputes that kingdoms are being referred in the earlier reference, however the same word used later in the same chapter is supposed to mean literal kings only and not kingdoms???

Sounds like "puzzle fitting" to me.

I am too rational to make such an irrational assumption.

pjts wrote:

gramps wrote:

Furthermore AE IV did not wax exceedingly great to the South, the East, and into the Glorious Land. He did have some initial success into Egypt (South) and was chased out by Rome, he died during his campaign into the East, and his persecution of the Jews led to revolt and eventual Independence.

No this is not talking about "Medo Persia", "Greece", and "little poo poo", the minor king AE IV. This must be referring to a much greater power. One that actually fits the text. The next great empire after the Grecian or Macedonian empire was Rome.

Antiochus IV was only one king among one of the 4 divisions of Alexanders empire. Not a 4th empire.

Antiochus IV does not fit the 2300 day prophecy. One must mistranslate the text, divide the days into two, and add a couple of months to make this one fit.

Antiochus IV did not rise against the "Prince of Princes" as stated in vs 8:25.

Please go re read the Cowles quotes or our posts from about 600 to about 900.
I'm not going to go nitpick this once more.

I did. The shoe still does not fit.

pjts wrote:

gramps wrote:

In 11:37 it says that "He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor any god." AE IV gave many gifts that benefited the gods of his fathers.

Ares, Mars or Hercules was not the god of his fathers. The desire of women whom he also ordered the cessation of worship including the goddesses loved by women such as Astarte, Anath or Tammuz. see post 1062.

"Ancient Macedonians looked up to Ares as a divine leader as well as a god" Wikipedia.

Antiochus IV was in the process of "finishing or rebuilding" a temple in Athens for Zeus when he died. The project had begun by him several years before he died, and was quite an undertaking.  Wikipedia.

Zeus - An ancient Greek god. The father of the gods, or king of the gods to the Greeks. Wikipedia.

Sorry, it looks like Antiochus IV was showing great regard for the God's of his fathers.

pjts wrote:

gramps the linguist wrote:

One must also ignore the importance of gender specific words in the Hebrew Language that clearly indicates that the little horn comes out of one of the 4 winds or directions of the compass rather from one of the 4 horn powers that followed Alexander the Great. This is a clear indication that this is not refering to Antiochus IV.

I have asked you several times where you received your advanced grad degree in language and linguistics. If you don't have one, please supply a link to someone who does have one that supports this view.

You can believe that "he" refers to "aunt sue", or "she" refers to "uncle bob" if you wish. I find that just plain "silly".

pjts wrote:

Gramps wrote:

One can clearly see it is not rational to believe that Antiochus IV a minor individual king is not the major power symbolized by the little horn of Daniel 8. 

I love how you try to play the superiority card using rational.

Sorry if concepts like rational or common sense are offensive to you. To me they are core to the reasoning process.

 

 If being rational and using common sense is core to the reasoning process, why aren't you using them?

I look forward to your first attempt at this.

jcgadfly wrote:

 If being rational and using common sense is core to the reasoning process, why aren't you using them?

I look forward to your first attempt at this.

Since in your book, based upon your own fundamentally flawed views, common sense and God cannot co exist???

What can I say? How does one describe a rainbow to a man born blind?

 

 

Gramster, 

would you really say that the idea that a thing can be in more than one position, or place, or level of energy,  at the same time, is consistent with "common sense"? That is the sort of thing Quantum Mechanics seems to tell us, at least for very small objects.

Or that Time itself passes at a different rate here on the surface of the Earth than it dose up on the International Space Station, as General Relativity tells us?

Are you serious, or just totally ignorant of what either theory is about (as I suspect)?

The only sense in which we could apply "common sense" to such theories is to acknowledge that they must be true because they have passed every experimental test we can devise.

But what they are telling us about the nature of reality is utterly against 'common sense', as scientists familiar with either field have frequently acknowledged.

It was also once 'common sense' that heavier objects fall faster than light objects. This applies to so many things science, ie serious, careful study of reality, reveals to us (the only true "Revelation&quot.

a significant degree 'common sense' varies from person to person, since it is dependent on their education, experience, and personal inclinations.

To me, "God" totally violates  common sense, but I would not use that fact to 'prove' anything, it can only ever be a guide to possible truth, at best. But like you, my 'common sense' is heavily determined by a long lifetime, probably comparable to yours in length, of personal experience and reading and listening to others. Its just that what I have read and experienced and learned has been very differently focussed from yours, so my sense of what 'makes sense' is very different from yours in many ways.

You have just demonstrated, yet again, your ignorance and/or your ability to ignore the facts about human understanding, and so many other things. Or twist the meaning of many words and phrases, such as "common sense", to support your purely subjective world-view.

But of course that is what it takes to continue to argue for the nonsense of a 'God' being, and the consistence and 'truth' of the Bible, in the face of a mountain of evidence and/or logic to the contrary.

I am sad for you in your delusion, but apparently it makes you happy, and obviously, in those famous words, 'you can't handle the Truth'. 

The Book of Daniel cannot be placed in a test tube to determine when or where it originated. Therefore we are left in evaluating the document for it's content to help determine logically these things.

I find it quite interesting that I get so much resistence to the application of simple common sense from atheists. I guess it must be necessary to throw common sense out the window in order to protect your religion. I don't have that problem with mine.