Proof No2 that the Bible was written by uninspired men: Joshua 10

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Heavenese

I am familiar with the double poetic form of the hebrew manuscripts, it's probably the only thing I got a decent understanding on. I don't have a problem with that, but with connecting Daniel ch. 12 verse 4 with the three prior verses. If the Greek translation has the saying as "evil shall increase", then that would definitely seperate this from the prior three verses. All I was saying is that verse 4 wasn't talking on the same thing as verses 1-3. I can also show verse 4 is seperate from verses 1-3 by the beginning of verse 4 itself. The angel said "but as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase." Those first words of the verse seperates verse 4 from verses 1-3, meaning verse 4 can stand alone and is not taking anything out of context. He told Daniel to seal up the words he spoken until the end of time, and I always took his next statment as what's going to happen in the meantime. That many will go back and forth, and knowledge would increase.


Now if the correct translation of ch. 12 verse 4 is "evil shall increase", then that renders my earlier points moot, that the angel was telling Daniel knowledge in general would increase. I'll look more into this concerning the translations.

Well, the complete oracle from God comprises chapters 10-12. It has a beginning, and an end. The appeal to Daniel to keep the words of this entire oracle (10-12) secret is referring directly to the oracle and its contents. See the beginning of the oracle:

In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia, an oracle was revealed to Daniel, who was called Belteshazar. That oracle was true, but it was a great task to understand the prophecy; understanding came to him through the vision.
(Daniel 10:1, NJPS)

Daniel then relates what happened in the following verses and how a divine being came to him to give him strength by relating how Michael - that divine warrior - came to his aid and will come to the aid of the people of God in the future, and finally tells him "However, I will tell you what is recorded in the book of truth" (10:21). The body of the Oracle then follows, ending in chapter 12 where we come full circle back to the original quotation of the oracle I gave in a previous post:

"At that time, the great prince, Michael, who stands beside the sons of your people, will appear."
(Dan. 12:1)

After relating the future salvation of the people through resurrection, Daniel is strongly ordered to not reveal this oracle to anyone until the actual time of the end. This is our passage in question leading up to the verse in question which you say is not related at all to what has proceeded it - but it is. After the verse, more details concerning the oracle are given in which it is asked when the time of the end will occur. Daniel is told

"Go, Daniel, for these words are secret and sealed to the time of the end.
Many will be purified and purged and refined;
the wicked will act wickedly
and none of the wicked will understand;
but the knowledgeable will understand.
(Daniel 12:9-10)

Now - surely you can see the big oracular picture. Once again the command to keep silent is given. The command to keep silent is concerning the great oracle of chapters 10-12. This can not be any more clearer than is already related in the book. I strongly urge you to read through chapters 10-12 and I think you will agree with me and almost every other single commentator that trying to set 12:4 by itself - completely divorced from its context - is incorrect. If that were the case, then the following verses would also be separate. But they are not. It is all concerning the great oracle he receives of the end times.

Originally Posted by Heavenese

I'll check some of those names you've listed. Yet all I was referring to is that Daniel 12 verse 4 was a stand alone verse, that it was seperate from verses 1-3. If the correct translation is "evil shall increase", then it will prove the verse was not related but also renders my original point moot about general knowledge increasing.

Now - even if "evil" is the original word in the text, it still doesn't remove the passage from the larger context of the oracle. It would be highly unlikely that smack dab in the middle of an enormous oracle that comprises 3 chapters, a verse would be inserted by someone which has absolutely nothing to do with the oracle. It just wouldn't make any sense - and while we may think it makes sense divorced from its context, we are doing it a great disservice. Whether "evil" or "knowledgeable" - it is part of the oracluar instructions concerning the end times.

Originally Posted by Heavenese

Now as for this particular source, it seems they don't believe Daniel wrote the letter of Daniel. That it was written by an Israelite who was in Babylon during the captivity. (As the source is mentioning a ruler who existed long after the Babylonian captivity) Now again I'm not a scholar, and haven't read over the Book of Daniel with a scholar's touch, but I disagree with this source right now just on principal. If the Jewish Study Bible believes Daniel was written later, they are reading things into the letter that are not true. Taking in a background, that happened hundreds of years after the letter was written. Yet all of this is besides my original point about 12 verse 4.

Now, I know that you probably come from a background that assumes that Daniel wrote the entire book of Daniel, simply because tradition has ascribed it to him and that you now believe it by principle. But the cold facts remain that the Book of Daniel was probably the last book written to be included in the traditional Canon of Scripture. Technically, the book belonged to that part of the Hebrew Bible known as "The Writings" and not to "The Prophets". Why? Because it was very late in composition. This is not just a minority opinion espoused by the editors of The Jewish Study Bible; it is a commonly known and accepted view backed up by a large amount of evidence. If you pick up virtually any reference work on the Bible - even from half a century ago and more, you will find things like the following from various denominations:

Although some of the apocalyptic sections of the Book of Daniel are written in deliberately obscure language and some verses defy interpretation, the literary problems raised by the book as a whole are comparatively simple. On fundamental points, except on the singleness of authorship, critical opinion has reached less divergent conclusions than for a considerable number of Old Testament writings. The chief problems concern the historicity of the seer Daniel and the historical background of the book, the sources used by the author, the unity and date of the book.
(Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1941, 1948, pp. 753-4)


The book appearing under the name of Daniel is actually by an unknown author...
The stories about Daniel in chs. 1-6 have a legendary character and are clearly fictitious....
The portrayal of Daniel as a Jewish exile in Babylon creates a literary setting in the sixth century BCE, and his visions there appear to provide insight into events in Judea in later centuries. The literary setting is not, however, the setting in which the book was actually written. The fact that ch. 11 obviously refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid ruler from Syria, makes it clear that the book took its final form during Antiochus's persecution of the Jews, which began with the desecration of the temple in 167 BCE.
Much of the material in chs. 1-6 probably originated in the fourth and third centuries BCE and circulated independently before being joined to the visions. The innacurate description of the end of Antiochus's reign and of his death indicates that the book was finished before these events of 164 BCE.
(The Harper Collins Study Bible, pp. 1168-69)

The Book of Daniel, probably written in its final version in 164 BCE, is probably the latest composition of the Hebrew Bible. Its narrative, however, is set much earlier...
The anonymous author thus uses the period of exile as a setting to address the challenging issues of Jews living under foreign kings....
The book presents to the reader a number of difficulties that render it a challenging yet fascinating text...
(The Jewish Study Bible, p. 1640)

The book is named, not after its author, but after its protagonist, who is presented here as living in Babylonia...
Having lost sight of these ancient modes of writing [various genres explained in the previous passage], until relatively recent years Jews and Christians considered Daniel to be true history, containing a genuine prophecy. Inasmuch as chs. 7-12 are written in the first person, it was natural to assume that the Daniel in chs. 1-6 was a truly historical character and that he was the author of the whole book. There would be few modern biblical scholars, however, who would now seriously defend such an opinon. The evidence for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming.
(The Jerome Biblical Commentary, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., 1968, pp. 446-448)

The last entry sums it up quite nicely. The evidence for the date of 164 IS overwhelming and something we cannot go into here in this thread. Suffice it to say, there are plenty of resources available to research these issues. Bear in mind that the writers of the above were all professing adherents to Christianity or Judaism, and writing these words had no adverse affect on their faith or relationship to God or Christ. It is a mistake to assume that one must adhere slavishly to the assumption (and an assumption it is) that God himself wrote the Bible through some method of direct inspiration. You may invoke 2 Tim. if you like, but that verse is referring to the then-current argument concerning the legitimacy of the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible. There were other reasons why Jews and Christians began assuming that the entire Bible was written by God himself, but we do a great disservice to God if we insist this belief of ours on Him. I certainly don't, for it's simply not sustainable under close scrutiny. You may find that disturbing (I know I did at first), but everyone has to wrestle with that fact eventually if they choose to truly dive into Scripture with an open mind and heart.

Originally Posted by Heavenese

Do you believe God exist and was involved in the writing of Scripture? What I meant by my comments here was that, I see you take the Bible as a work of literature. That you see it as a scholar would see it. A scholar doesn't consider the Bible as being something more than that, that God was involved in it.

That's a bit of a personal question that doesn't have a real bearing on what we're discussing. The Bible is a work of literature - yes - but it's much more than that. If I view it as a scholar, then that is because that is how I eventually came to approach it after years of Baptist Fundamentalism. As I pointed out above - it shouldn't impact one's relationship to God. God does not live or die by the existence of a collection of books, does He? Let us not make an idol out of the Bible....

And as for scholars - well, they have no problem reconciling their scholarship with their relationship with God. Some lost faith, but the vast majority of Biblical scholars are practicing believers. I think you automatically view scholars as suspect for some reason - perhaps because they do not hold to the same doctrines that you do?

Originally Posted by Heavenese

I think I understand now by what you mean concerning Platonist influence. Yet, the Hebrews' verse I mentioned really does refer to Genesis. It refers to things spoken of in the OT. By faith, God formed the worlds, so that what we see, was not made by things that are visible. It's referring to God speaking creation into existence. I don't see how Plato is involved here. What I'm getting at is if God in involved in the Scriptures, that He inspired men to write, then they are connected.

I don't think it has to mean our understanding of planets. Even if we view the world like the ancient Israelites did, and then say God created more, we are indirectly saying God created planets. I'm sure if the Israelites were on Mars and wrote the Scriptures, they would have the same views about the firmament and everything. (Of course it would be a little bit different, but concerning land/sky/sun it would be the same) So I say the Bible is not a science book, but will argue it's a history book.

Hmm.. it is good you are seeing what I'm saying about Platonism, but then you say that you don't see what it has to do with it? Are you familiar with Platonism, out of curiosity? It's no shame if you are not, for not many people are. But it is a good idea to learn a little about it to see how it affected the New Testamental writers. Perhaps in another post we can look at the allegory of the Cave.

Originally Posted by Heavenese

I'm different, but not difficult. By that, I see the evidence against the things said in the Bible. It's not that I ignore them, but that I expect them. I don't want to be difficult, because I could just say, "no matter what, the Bible is history." Yet that is being dishonest. The best way to describe me is, I have good reason to believe a lot is about to be uncovered, because of science. I hope to get involved in research and archaelogical digs, to point people in the right direction on where to look.

I hope you achieve your goal. Be aware that in order to become qualified in such a venture, you will have to wrestle with issues that might make you uncomfortable in certain areas. Biblical Archaeology is an exciting field right now, but fraught with danger unfortunately. Jodi Magness has a fascinating series of lectures on the Archaeology of the Holy Land - available online for free, probably - that is both interesting and informative.

Originally Posted by whoppers

And what makes you think it is identical? Have you studied the two? What IS this copy of Isaiah that you speak of that is "thousands of years old"? Are you trying to refer to the Masoretic Text or the Dead Sea Scrolls copy?

For one thing is certain - there ARE differences between the traditional Masoretic Text's oldest complete copy of the Hebrew Bible (the Leningrad Codex of ca. 1008-9) and the Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you are able - the entire Isaiah scroll is available online in a viewable format. Why not compare the two?

Not only this whoppers but the Masoretic Text is a pointed text which can have significant effects on the text. As an example that I posted elsewhere in regard to Daniel is Chapter 9:25.

You cannot know whether the 'annoited one' (whoever that is for it is not self evident) comes after the first 7 'weeks' (49 yrs) or the after the next 62 'weeks' (49+434 = 483 yrs).

Here is why. The Masorites accented the text with a disjunctive accent called an atnah between the 49 yrs and the 434 yrs. As such it is meant to seperate items on either side of the accent. For them the 'annoited one' comes at the end of the first 7 'weeks.'

And this is not a reaction to Christian interpretation since this reading of the text was known prior to the Masorites as seen in Eusibius. Of course there were no accents prior to the Masorites so any interpetation is as good as another but this ambiguity has shown-up in modern translations. The first three follow the Masoretic tradition while the latter three do not.

(ESV) 25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

(RSV) 25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

(NRSV) 25 Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time.

(NIV): 25 “Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.

(NLT): 25 Now listen and understand! Seven sets of seven plus sixty-two sets of seven will pass from the time the command is given to rebuild Jerusalem until a ruler—the Anointed One—comes. Jerusalem will be rebuilt with streets and strong defenses, despite the perilous times.

(KJV): 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Now if the Masoretic text is accurate then the 'prophecy' does not have anything to do with being Messianic for an 'annoited one' could be anyone chosen by God for a specific purpose, even pagans, like Cyrus. Also, with this reading the annoited one comes after the first 7 weeks.

[whoppers]

Very good post, Shiloh1 - as usual - and very good points! Good observation on Daniel and how the Masoretic text can never be truly identical with any text prior to their editorial work involving accents, vowel points, etc.

Due to the originally consonantal nature of Biblical Hebrew writing, it is also possible to read entirely different words or conjugations in the text. In other words, while the Masoretic text may have built up a certain tradition of pronounciation and vowel-marking there is no guarantee that it was the original. The equivalent would be if I wrote "th bdy ws ntrnd" and traditionally marked this as "the body was interned", when the actual word might have been "the body was untrained". This happened with the Masoretic textual tradition in many instances.

You're correct about the nebulous identity of the The "Annointed One", which is the translation for what we know in English as "the Messiah" and it has been Biblically applied to Israelite Kings, Cyrus the Great and to a future Apocalyptic Davidic King or other figure. Many people make the mistake of assuming that every mention of a figure even resembling the "Annointed One" must refer to Jesus, or they ignore the passage.

The figure referred to in Daniel 9:26 is probably Onias III - the murdered high priest who met his end in 171 BCE (unfortunately ignored by many Protestant Christians who do read the so-called "Apocrypha":

At the very time of this agitation there were uprisings in the cities of Tarsus and Mallos because they had been given as a gift to Antiochus, the king's conucbine. The king, in great haste, came to put down the revolt. He left as his deputy Andronikos, a man of high prestige. Menelaus believed that here was a favorable opportunity. He purloined some of the gold vessels of the temple and made a present of them to Andronikos. In fact, he had sold other vessels to buyers in Tyre and the neighboring cities.
Onias, fully informed of Menelaus' acts, withdrew to a place of asylum at Daphne by Antioch and denounced him. Thereupon, Menelaus took Andronikos aside privately and begged him to do away with Onias. Brazen in treachery, Andronikos went to Onias, accepted his right hand, and gave him his own in oath. Though Onias held him in suspicion, Andronikos induced him to come out of his place of asylum and then, with no respect for justice, immediately did away with him.
As a result, not only Jews but many from other nationalities were scandalized and outraged over the wicked murder of the man.
(2 Maccabees 4:30-35, AB 41A)

"Game of Thrones" anyone? The date 171 BCE corresponds pretty well, Onias could have been seen as an "annointed one" (a high priest in this case) and it matches well with the date of 174 BCE that most scholars point to as a date for the book of Daniel. In this instance of "Messiah" - the figure is not a royal heir of David presumably.


The big deal about many Apocalpytic writings (and Daniel certainly falls under that unique genre) is that they envisioned a future restoration of Israel and the Davidic Monarchy, with a new "son" of David on the throne - which had been promised to them in 2 Samuel 7:1-17 via an oracle of Yahweh through Nathan:

"And now, this is what you are to say to my servant David.
'This is what Yahweh Sabaoth has said: "I was with you wherever you went, clearing all your enemies from your path. And I shall make you a name like the names of the nobility in the land. I shall fix a place for my people Israel and plant it, so that it will remain where it is and never again be disturbed, and nefarious men will no longer abuse it as in the past, in the days when I appointed judges over my people Israel. Then I shall give them rest from all their enemies."

" 'Also Yahweh discloses to you that, as for a house, he will build one for you! "When your life is completed and you lie down with your fathers, I shall raise up your offspring, the issue of your own body, after you and establish kingship. He will build a house for my name, and I shall keep his throne forever stable. I shall become a father to him, and he will become a son to me. If he does wrong, I shall discipline him with the rod men use, with the blows of human beings. But I shall not withdraw my favor from him as I withdrew it from your predecessor. Your royal house will be secure forever in my care, and your throne will be stable forever." ' "
(2 Samuel 7:8-16, AB 9)

This was the central, unconditional promise made to David - that there would be a Davidic king on the throne forever. As we know, however, this did not happen. The Davidic Monarchy ended with the Babylonian Conquest and the throne was given to another family. It's this promise that apocalyptic writers seized onto when they kept promising a new "annointed one" to once again free Israel and once again realize this oracle. Technically, however, the oracle's promise failed. Christians have used this promise to declare themselves the new "Israel" (thus the "New Covenant/Testament" as opposed to the "Old Covenant/Testament") - stripping Jews of their Covenantal status - and declaring that Jesus was somehow a "son of David", "the issue of [his] own body" - even though he was born of a virgin in some traditions. The genealogies, no matter how apologetic in nature, never actually show that Jesus was an actual descendant of David. Of course, one will hear the usual "but Mary was a so and so...", but this is just pure guesswork based on an idea that Jews ALWAYS viewed descent through the female - which just wasn't true at that time.

[MrBlueSky_]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

First it was Judges 19. Now it's Joshua 10. If you count up all the individual chapters of all the books that make up the Bible, you'll see that our esteemed OP has enough material to carry him through the rest of the century. (I can't wait until he starts scrutinizing each individual verse from the Book of Proverbs!)

He should apply to a local college and offer to teach a class in Cherry Picking 101.

One can get free lessons in that from any Christian or church service.