Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
**could this please be moved to general religion forum, i realized i should have posted it there, thanks*****
I'd like to know what atheists think of the book of Daniel, specifically chapter 11. The prophecy given in this chapter is far more specific than other Biblical prophecies or Nostradamus' prophecies, meaning that it mentions the actual names of the nations involved in the prophecy (Persia and Greece) and the date in which the events in the prophecy will occur (four reigning kings of Persia into the future).
Daniel 11 (presumed to have been written in 536 BC during the reign of Cyrus in Persia) prophecizes that there will be three more kings in Persia after Cyrus the Great before the emergence of a fourth Persian King that the text specifically states will attack Greece. In history, King Xerxes was the fourth king after Cyrus and did indeed attack Greece (granted his predecessor Darius conqured Thrace and Macedon but Xerxes reigned over the most important battles against the Greek heartland)
Then Daniel goes on to write that a mighty king will appear and create a great empire that will be broken up after a short time and "parceled out towards the four winds of heaven" and "given to others"...indeed, Alexander of Macedon ruled a great empire which lasted a short time and was divided amongst his generals on his death, eventually forming 4 main "Hellenistic" kingdoms (four winds=four kingdoms)
the text goes on to describe further wars between the souther Ptolemaic kingdom and northern Seleucid kingdom...i won't go into details, but you can read the text for yourself and compare it to actual history.
I feel that this is one of the the most obvious and clear prophecies ever written and certainly did come true. The only way I could see this prophecy being refuted as non-supernatural would be if someone proved that it was written after the Greco_Persian war, Alexander's conquests and the Hellenistic period wars. The book of Daniel (or 8 chapters of it) were found in the Dead Sea Scroll caves and have been dated anywhere between 400BC and 200AD....not quite 536 BC, but the scroll found in the Qumran caves was probably merely a copy of an earlier original. If it is not, than that, i believe, is the only thing that could refute this prophecy as being divine and supernatural. The web-link below writes that the Aramaic style used to write Daniel was indicative of a 6th century BC date
"A total of eight copies of the Book of Daniel have been found at Qumran: two in Cave 1, five in Cave 4, and one in Cave 6. None are complete due to degradation, but between them, they preserve text from eleven of Daniel’s twelve chapters. The twelfth chapter is found in the Florilegium4Q174. All eight manuscripts were copied within 175 years, ranging from 125 BCE (4QDanc) to about 50 CE (4QDanb)."
Nowhere near the 400 BC you stated in your post.
Also from the same source: "The presence of three Greek loanwords that only occur in Daniel chapter 3, have supporters of a late date say that Daniel had to have been written after Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Orient, from 330 BCE. They claim that it would be impossible for Greek loanwords to appear two centuries before then. These loanwords are three Greek musical terms."
Also from the same source: "Although the book has been historically classified as "prophetic", the style of writing is apocalyptic which was popular between 200 BCE and 100 CE."
As a practical matter, the claim of prophecy is extraordinary and thus requires extraordinary evidence. It is not enough to suggest that the prophecy might/could have been written before the events transpired that the text speaks of, the burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. Show that it must have been written before the events transpired.
In the absence of such proof, I naturally assume that Daniel chapter 11 was written after the events had already happened as if Daniel had foretold them. Not impressive at all.
dealing with the Greek loanwords (the instrument names), I believe it to be conceivable that there were Greeks living within the Persian empire of Daniels time (assuming it is 6th century BC). There was definatly contact between 6th century Persia and Greece, economic and cultural trade could have lead to exchange of certain words, instruments or both. It would not be impossible for the Daniel of 6th century Persia to know Greek terms for Greek instruments being used within a multicultural Persian Empire.
I think, since it is asking atheists particularly for their take on Daniel, it is ok in this thread. We would rather not bus over to Christianity in order to post. (pre- p.s since you suggested 'religion' we feel more comfortable here)
I consider that what more persuasively dates Daniel to the time of the Seleucids rather than the time of Cyrus is that the history relating to fall of Babylon is shaky enough to be the work of someone consulting historic documents rather than recording what was happening at the time while the supposed prophecies of the wars between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids including the greek interference in Judaean politics and temple administration is meticulously documented though in oracular style up to a particular date when it goes wrong and thereafter becomes decidedly prophetic and having no relation to what actually occurred.
The inference is obvious. Daniel was written at the time of the most accurate history (though written to look as though it was an ancient prophecy to give it authority) and stops at the time that history becomes speculative prophecy. It can be narrowed down to a specific year. 167 B.C - the year before the Maccabean revolt. Thus the inference is that it was written as a assurance to the revolutionaries that God had prophesied (through the figure of Daniel) that Antiochus would assuredly come to a sticky end and Judea would enter a period of messianic splendour. The Hasmonean victory and dynasty must have seemed as though the prophecy had been fulfilled and never mind that the events of the war were rather different. But of course, it didn't last.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-10-2012 at 08:43 PM..
this article above raises the issue that Daniel uses 6th century Persian governmental terms that would be unknown to Jews during the time of the Maccabees
Quite. I don't know what we would be expected to say, But I suspect that the idea was to put in front of us what appeared to be an undeniable example of accurate prophecy. I had previously been able to show that the 'statue' prophecy could not relate to our own times, as was argued by those who argued the 'Bible prophecy is happening now', but the internal evidence that Daniel was a Greek Empire date work written to look like prophecy by purporting to be of Persian date came to me in reading some of the excellent articles on the subject.
The claim that it related the Jesus story doesn't work as it related to the High Priest Iason and his struggles with Antiochus Epiphanes and even less does it relate to our own times. The claim that Newton calculated that it predicted the events of the 20th c. is a curious one and seems a bothersome coincidence, but I wonder whether some mathematics expert could check that claim. The 'fifty weeks of years' is apparently fiddled to get it to relate to our own times.
Like the famed prophecies of Tyre and Babylon, Daniel, correctly understood, is just more evidence of a relatively late date of Bible - writing and of a polemic purpose - to prove that Judea needn't be afraid of taking on the Seleucids as God had helped them to beat bigger empires in the past.
My mind just exploded. Is this part of Daniel being trotted out as some sort of proof of something? Here's what I think of this part of Daniel: Blah blah blah etc.
As they say, you get out what you put in. Yes, Daniel is perhaps Blah in factual terms, while to Bible - believers it is one of the best proofs of the reliability of the Bible, one of the best prophecies of Jesus and the most exciting prophecy of God's plans working out in the present century - or the last, rather.
For me it is all part of the mental archeology of Bible study - digging up the earthworks and crop marks noted for decades on maps as 'Arthur's castle' and discovering that it must be something quite different because of the dating material.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know what we would be expected to say, But I suspect that the idea was to put in front of us what appeared to be an undeniable example of accurate prophecy. I had previously been able to show that the 'statue' prophecy could not relate to our own times, as was argued by those who argued the 'Bible prophecy is happening now', but the internal evidence that Daniel was a Greek Empire date work written to look like prophecy by purporting to be of Persian date came to me in reading some of the excellent articles on the subject.
