Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-10-2012, 08:16 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,915,755 times
Reputation: 1010

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
Blah! Blah! You are just repeating yourself - the grammar is what it is - 'an anointed one' - a mashiah is a person anointed to perform a certain task - nothing neccesitates it to be Jesus. Sorry you have a problem accepting these facts. And I have read that book by Anderson - he is the king of special pleading.
Hi Shiloh,
I looked at some other Hebrew texts of Daniel and the definite article prior to Messiah is absent. In the Concordant Literal Old Testament it is thus:


Dan 9:26 After the sixty-two sevens, Messiah will be cut off,
and there is no adjudication for Him. The city and the holy place
shall be laid in ruins with the other governor's coming; then its
end is by an overflow, and till the end of the war desolations will be decided."

It helps neither side to say "the Messiah" or "a Messiah."

There is just one "seven" remaining after Messiah was cut off. Israel was set aside and for the last 2000 years grace has gone to the nations apart from Israel. Once the complement of the nations arrives:

Romans 11:25-26 For I am not willing for you to be ignorant of this secret, brethren, lest you may be
passing for prudent among yourselves, that callousness, in part, on Israel has come, until the
complement of the nations may be entering." (26) And thus all Israel shall be saved, according as it is
written, Arriving out of Zion shall be the Rescuer. He will be turning away irreverence from Jacob."

then the seven final years takes place. The New Testament reveals that for 3 1/2 years the man of lawlessness will treat Israel good then for 3 1/2 years (totaling the final 7) he will mistreat Israel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-10-2012, 03:23 PM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Hi Shiloh,
I looked at some other Hebrew texts of Daniel and the definite article prior to Messiah is absent. In the Concordant Literal Old Testament it is thus:


Dan 9:26 After the sixty-two sevens, Messiah will be cut off,
and there is no adjudication for Him. The city and the holy place
shall be laid in ruins with the other governor's coming; then its
end is by an overflow, and till the end of the war desolations will be decided."

It helps neither side to say "the Messiah" or "a Messiah."
It does help - once again it is a common noun and adding the capital letter is an interpretation specifying a particular person. The English translation 'an anointed one' is perfectly true to the grammar and context - 'a Messiah' or 'the Messiah' shows bias toward a particular view thereby prejudicing the text and those who read it, and 'a Messiah' does not make any sense unless you believe in two Messiahs (well that's another Jewish story).

The proper translation should be 'an anointed one.' The term Messiah has been narrowly defined ever since it was used soley to reference Jesus - it no longer carries (in people's minds) the simply idea of an anointed person for a sepcifc task.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2012, 09:57 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,089,918 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
There are some that argue that the seventy week prophecy found in Daniel in the Old Testament was an exact prophecy of the coming of the messiah.

Studying this claim immediately raises two threshold questions.

1. Do we have any evidence as to who actually wrote the prophecy we attribute to Daniel?

2. Do we have any evidence that this prophecy wasn't written after the events it describes.
I'm not saying your questions are bad, I'm just saying they are premature.

It's most unfortunate that schools no longer teach kids how to read. I had to waste a lot of valuable time teaching students (at the university level) how to read. I'm going to operate on the presumption that everyone has both read and understands Daniel. Such people should be able to summarize each chapter of Daniel in ~5 words more less. For the benefit of those who cannot, I'll help you out here....

Daniel 1 is in Hebrew. Daniel 2-7 is in Aramaic. Daniel 8-12 is in Hebrew. That is part of the “scheme of the theme.” An intelligent person should be able to summarize each chapter of Daniel in just a few words:

Daniel 1: Jehoiakim is judged (he burnt the "scroll of Jeremiah" – no, not the Book of Jeremiah, it was the Book of Deuteronomy written by Jeremiah, well, actually by Jeremiah’s scribe Baruch).
Daniel 2: Four kingdoms are judged (from Nebuchadnezzar’s vision)
Daniel 3: Daniel is saved
Daniel 4: Nebuchadnezzar is judged
Daniel 5: Belshazzar is judged
Daniel 6: Daniel is saved
Daniel 7: Four
kingdoms are judged (from Daniel’s vision)
Daniel 8: Medo-Persia and Macedonia are judged
Daniel 9: The Hasmonean Kingdom is judged
Daniel 10-12: An expansion of Daniel 8 where the Persian and Macedonian
kingdoms are judged

The theme of Daniel is quite clearly god passing judgement on pompous over-bearing rulers and haughty kingdoms, and that has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth, unless you’re suggesting that Jesus was pompous and haughty.

So, are you? Suggesting that Jesus was pompous and haughty?

Because that would be very interesting indeed.

Nearly 100% of "biblical" problems stem from the fact that people don't know how to read, and they see only what they want to see. As a result, they misinterpret everything. Concerning Daniel.....

The first error people make is they don't understand that covenants with Yahweh are conditional. If you don't understand that, the text won't make any sense.

The second error people make is they never read Ezra and Nehemiah (aka Ezra II) -- and it wouldn't matter if they did, because they don't know how to read --- so they don't understand that the exiles are pathetic pukes not worthy enough to be charged with the glorious task of rebuilding the Temple (never mind the fact that no one bothers to question why a supposedly beneficent enlightened being requires a special temple made to exacting standards and decorated by Martha Stewart so that animals may be slaughtered and hacked into bits in his honor in the first place).

Third, because they didn't read Ezra and Nehemiah (aka Ezra II) and didn't understand those texts, they don't understand that the 70 years was extended into 70 weeks of years.

Fourth, because of that, they don't understand that the 70 years has already passed, which is why Daniel is praying in earnest and fasting, smeared with ashes and wearing sackcloth.

Fifth, they totally ignore that Daniel's prayers stem from the "going forth of a word" by Jeremiah in either Jeremiah 25:1-13 or Jeremiah 29:1-14 (or both maybe).


At this point, it might be best to digress and point out a few things that everyone overlooks, by walking through some of the critical verses (that everyone ignores).


Daniel 9:2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, came to understand from the sacred books that, according to the word of Yahweh disclosed to the prophet Jeremiah, the years for the fulfilling of the desolation of Jerusalem were seventy in number.

What is Daniel saying? Well, there's only two possible verses Daniel could be referencing attributed to Jeremiah, either

Jeremiah 25:11 All this land will become a desolate wasteland. These nations will be subject to the king of
Babylon for seventy years.

--or--

Jeremiah 29:10 According to the fullness of Babylon seventy years I will take thought of you and I will establish my gracious word to you by bringing you back to this place.

It doesn’t really matter which, the point is that Daniel’s vision takes place after the captivity has ended, but before the
Temple has been rebuilt. How do we know? Maybe we should read the text:

Daniel 9:7 To you righteousness, adonay, and to us shame of face like this day – the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far away in all the countries in which you have scattered them, because they have behaved unfaithfully toward you…9:17 “So now, elohim, hear the prayer and requests of your servant, and let your face shine on your devastated sanctuary for the sake of my adonay…

Okay, there are people, yeah, Jews, living in
Jerusalem (and elsewhere), but the Temple is still "devastated."

Daniel 9:3 I turned my face to adonay elohim to implore him by prayer and requests, with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes.

Daniel is praying, but it isn’t an ordinary prayer, as evidenced by the fact that Daniel fasts, puts on sack cloth and smears himself with ashes. Why? Maybe it has something to do with Daniel reading Jeremiah? Is that a good guess?

Jeremiah 29:12 You will call out to me and come to me in prayer and I will hear your prayers. 29:13 You will seek me and find [me] because you will seek me with all your heart. 29:14 I will let myself be found by you says the Oracle of the Lord. Then I will restore your fortune and will regather you from all the nations and all the places where I have exiled you, says the Oracle of the Lord.

Glad we cleared that up.

Daniel 9:4 I prayed to Yahweh elohim, confessing in this way: adonay, great and awesome elohim who keeps the covenant and the loyal love with those who love him and keep his commandments, 9:5 we have sinned! We have done what is wrong and wicked; we have rebelled by turning away from your commandments and standards.

Anyone taking notes? You need to pay attention to the “sinning, wickedness and rebellion” that Daniel mentions.

The promise to return is a covenant. Covenants with Yahweh are conditional, and the main condition is predicated on keeping the Commandments (all 913 of them) and being faithful to Yahweh.

Daniel thought that at the end of the 70 years, the captivity would be ended AND the Temple would be restored. Nope, that is not how it was supposed to be.



A messenger comes to set Daniel straight....

Daniel 9:24 “Seventy sevens have been determined concerning your people and your holy city to finish rebellion, to bring sin to completion, to atone for iniquity, to bring everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place.

Daniel understands that Yahweh’s promise is conditional based on penitence by the Hebrews, but the Hebrews refuse to repent (to their enlightened god who demands animals be slaughtered and burnt in a special temple designed to exacting standards and decorated by Eddie Bauer and Martha Stewart)......... and that is why the original 70 years gets turned into “seventy sevens” of years, and how bizarre that so few can figure that out?

This is not the first time we’ve seen this. If Ka’in is punished for seven generations, then Lamech for seventy and seven, right? I’m assuming you’ve read Genesis (and understand it -- maybe that's too much to ask).

“Seventy sevens have been determined…” is the operand, past tense. The 490 years have already started. What is the starting date?



Which brings us to the sixth compounded error, which is that everyone totally ignore the fact that the messenger uses the same phrase "going forth..." which relates back to Jeremiah.


Because everyone keeps making the errors, they make a seventh mistake when they miss the starting date as 605 BCE, which was the "going forth of a word."


Eighth, because everyone gets the starting date wrong, they can't see that 605 BCE plus 49 years (seven sevens) puts the date at 559 BCE. That’s when Cyrus revolted. Cyrus the Persian is a Mede. His mother was a Median princess, he was raised in Media until he had 12 years, and he ruled as a Median king for 29 years.



Who was the king of Persia? That would be Astyages who ruled as both King of Persia and King of Medo-Persia.


If you want to view this light of modern standards, then Cyrus would be the King of Hungaria, while Astyages would be the King of Austria, and Astyages would also be the King of the Austro-Hungarian Kingdom (or the misnomer Austro-Hungarian Empire).


Another way of looking at is Cyrus is Scottish and the King of Scotland, but he is subordinate to the King of England and Wales, who is also the king of the entire empire (which includes Scotland).


So Cyrus the Median King overthrows Astyages the Persian King and overlord of the Medo-Persian Empire; Cyrus then abolishes the Median Kingdom and merges it with Persia; and then Cyrus rules from within the old geographic boundaries of Persia -- meaning Cyrus set up his kingdom in Persia and not in Media.....


.....and that is why he is called Cyrus the Persian (even though Cyrus was born in Media of a Median princess and was raised and educated in Media and ruled Media).


Glad we got that cleared up.


The ninth mistake everyone makes is that they totally ignore the fact that Cyrus is....a messiah.....a mashiach.....a christ......an anointed of Yahweh.

Isaiah 45:1 This is what Yahweh says to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I hold in order to subdue nations before him, and the belts of kings I will loosen, to open doors before him, so gates remain unclosed…

Tenth, having made all of those errors, and then refusing to read an Hebrew text and insisting upon using poorly translated texts that do not have the correct pointing, they misinterpret this...


Daniel 9:25 [Note: there are no chapter/verse numbers in the original text]



And you are to know and understand
from the going forth of a word to restore and to build Jerusalem
until an anointed one who is a ruler,
there shall be seven sevens;


That is the CORRECT translation and pointing of the text.

The "anointed one who is a ruler" is Cyrus the Mede who ruled from Persia.

A better translation would be...

Daniel 9:25(a) And you are to know and understand from 605 BCE until Cyrus rules, there shall be 49 years;

...which not only makes sense, but was historically fulfilled.

And then because people misinterpret that, they botch the next passage...

Daniel 9:25(b) [Note: there are no chapter/verse numbers in the original text]



and for sixty-two sevens, it shall be restored and built street and moat even in distressful times. After the sixty-two sevens, an anointed one will be cut off and have nothing.

Again, this is the correct translation and proper pointing according to the Hebrew text and it is the Hebrew text that matters. The 434 years begins in 539 BCE with the command by Cryus to return and restore the Temple, and ends in 105 BCE with the rule of King Aristobulous I of the Hasomean Kingdom. In addition to being king, he was also the High-Priest, meaning he was an anointed one. However, after the restoration of the kingdom his reign didn’t even last two years before being cut off.

Finally, because everyone fails to understand Daniel and they misinterpret the text, they miss the boat on...

Daniel 9:26-27 [Note: there are no chapter/verse numbers in the original text]


As for the city and the sanctuary, the people of the prince will destroy them.

His end is like a flood until the end of the war that has been decreed there will be destruction.
He will confirm a covenant with the great ones for one seven,

but in the middle he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt.

On the wing of abominations one who destroys,

until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys.

Again, this is the proper pointing of the text. The “prince” is King Alexander Jannaeus (Yanni), the successor to Aristobulous. He expanded the kingdom to even larger size than under the time of Solomon. However, during a rebellion 94 – 88 BCE (that is the final seven years or “week” of the prophecy) Jannaeus made a “covenant with the great ones,” the Greeks, to put down the rebellion. The result was seven years of war (the seven), a lot of dead Jews, sacrifices stop, Jannaeus ends up dying, his two sons fight over the throne, and in the end the kingdom is lost yet again when the Romans take control in 64 BCE.

All of that fits into the theme of Daniel, which as I already pointed out, is the judgment of pompous over-bearing rulers and haughty kingdoms.

The correct interpretation shows that it was either the Hasmonean Kingdom, or Alexander Yanni who was judged, and that basically was the end of the Hebrew kingdoms.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
It does help - once again it is a common noun and adding the capital letter is an interpretation specifying a particular person. The English translation 'an anointed one' is perfectly true to the grammar and context - 'a Messiah' or 'the Messiah' shows bias toward a particular view thereby prejudicing the text and those who read it....
Oh, that's rich --- shows bias toward a particular view?

No such thing as "Messiah." It is "messiah."

By capitalizing a word that is not capitalized in the original text, you are showing bias toward a particular view and prejudicing the text and those who read it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
....., and 'a Messiah' does not make any sense unless you believe in two Messiahs (well that's another Jewish story).
Sorry, but "a messiah" makes perfect sense if you have any understanding whatsoever of Hebrew history.

A messiah is simply a person who has been anointed --- meaning a person with some authority threw stinky oil on them.

Through out Hebrew history, there have literally been more than 10,000 messiahs.

Every High Priest was/is a messiah; every king of Israel or Judah was a messiah; every prophet that was recognized as a true prophet was a messiah; and so on.

The High Priest, the King, and a few prophets running around --- yeah, you can have more than one messiah at a time and that was almost always the case.

As a point of fact, during the Jewish Wars 60-70 CE there were over 100, count them, 100+ mashiachim running around Galilee, Idumea, Samaria and Judea. Nearly all of them were killed. About a dozen messiahs and their followers entered Jerusalem and prepared it for siege by the Romans. By the time the Romans (commanded by Vespasian) got there, the messiahs had killed each other and their followers off and there were only 5 remaining alive.

Of those five christs, the three best known christs are
John Christ of Gishala, John Christ Bar Giora, Simon Christ the Idumean.

I believe it was John Christ Bar Giora who was captured alive and taken to Rome in chains.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
Daniel 5:30-31 “ That very night Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was killed. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.” (NRSV)

Wasn’t it Cyrus the Persian who conquered the kingdom? Was there ever any such person as Darius the Mede?
Why do you people insist upon using an inferior text?

All Hebrew manuscripts clearly show the pointing of the Hebrew to be this (and this is also the correct translation) if the chapters and verses were properly numbered:

Daniel 6:1
Darius the Mede received the kingdom when he was about sixty-two years old.


The Aramaic word is qibel meaning to gain or receive. The bad translation and erroneous pointing in the the King James Vision and other texts leads people to falsely believe that Darius took the kingdom from Belshazaar, but that is not true.

Daniel does not list the interim rulers because nobody gives a damn about Smerdis the Usurper and the other pretenders to the throne. Darius is the true dynastic successor because he is a Mede and neither Cyrus nor the others had any heirs.


So Daniel 5 closes with the judgement of Belshazzar --- in keeping with the entire theme of Daniel which is the judgment of haughty kings and kingdoms ---- then Daniel 6 picks up with Darius the Mede.

There is nothing incongruous or improper with that.

What about the interim rulers? Again, who cares? Daniel is not an historical work -- it is work which juxtaposes the righteous Daniel who was twice saved from death against haughty arrogant kings and kingdoms that were destroyed ---- starting with an Hebrew king and ending with the judgment of an Hebrew king/kingdom.

Spoiler
(hint...............hint......................hint ........................hint..................hint ).


Regarding Cyrus the Persian (snicker -- Cyrus was actually a Mede) I already addressed the circumstances of his birth and upbringing.

Biblically....

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2012, 10:57 PM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Sorry, but "a messiah" makes perfect sense if you have any understanding whatsoever of Hebrew history.

A messiah is simply a person who has been anointed --- meaning a person with some authority threw stinky oil on them.

Through out Hebrew history, there have literally been more than 10,000 messiahs.

Every High Priest was/is a messiah; every king of Israel or Judah was a messiah; every prophet that was recognized as a true prophet was a messiah; and so on.

The High Priest, the King, and a few prophets running around --- yeah, you can have more than one messiah at a time and that was almost always the case.
That's my point. I said 'a Messiah' not 'a messiah' emphasising the capital that certain translations use. The former being a prejudiced translation.

Edit: By the way a nice summary of Ronald W. Pierce's take on it - which I think is one of the best explanations.

One addition regarding the 559 year of Cyrus's rebellion - Ezra 1:1-4 'Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus...' who of is 'an anointed ruler' - v.25

Last edited by 2K5Gx2km; 12-10-2012 at 11:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2012, 12:26 AM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Why do you people insist upon using an inferior text?

All Hebrew manuscripts clearly show the pointing of the Hebrew to be this (and this is also the correct translation) if the chapters and verses were properly numbered:

Daniel 6:1 Darius the Mede received the kingdom when he was about sixty-two years old.

The Aramaic word is qibel meaning to gain or receive. The bad translation and erroneous pointing in the the King James Vision and other texts leads people to falsely believe that Darius took the kingdom from Belshazaar, but that is not true.

Daniel does not list the interim rulers because nobody gives a damn about Smerdis the Usurper and the other pretenders to the throne. Darius is the true dynastic successor because he is a Mede and neither Cyrus nor the others had any heirs.

So Daniel 5 closes with the judgement of Belshazzar --- in keeping with the entire theme of Daniel which is the judgment of haughty kings and kingdoms ---- then Daniel 6 picks up with Darius the Mede.

There is nothing incongruous or improper with that.

What about the interim rulers? Again, who cares? Daniel is not an historical work -- it is work which juxtaposes the righteous Daniel who was twice saved from death against haughty arrogant kings and kingdoms that were destroyed ---- starting with an Hebrew king and ending with the judgment of an Hebrew king/kingdom.
And also 6:28 'So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.'

If I rember correctly I think some scholars allow for 'that is' in place of 'and in' equating Darius with Cyrus?? Anyway, 5:31 should be 6:1.

Interesting that this verse (28) implies that someone wrote these chapters (1-6) after Cyrus the Persian's reign as it seems to be the same narrartor talking about Daniel and not Daniel himself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2012, 01:46 AM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
Another point regarding verse 26a - 'After the sixty-two sevens, an anointed one will be cut off and have nothing' - is that the phrase 'not for himslef' cannot be defended. Just another prejudiced translation by the anointed kings of special pleading. You can't get anymore prejudiced in trying to make 'the Messiah' perform some altruistic life giving act. By the way the phrase 'cut-off' also does not necessitate death. They butchered 3/4 of this verse (with 'an anointed one', 'cut-off', and 'have nothing') in order to make it look like Jesus was the fulfillment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2012, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,710,439 times
Reputation: 265
Eusebius posted that:

“That's exactly what I am saying that Menelaus was too late and he did not fulfill the prophetic statements as Jesus did. Jesus fulfilled the Daniel prophecy to the DAY.”

However, we are still awaiting his proof for this assertion.

On the other hand, the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Catholic New American Bible both claim that the seventy weeks is the time between the Babylonian exile and the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 BC. (See the Jewish Encyclopedia Online and the New American Bible Online)

Perhaps Eusebius can disprove their conclusions.

Otherwise, lets just consider his claim to be another assertion without evidence.

Last edited by ancient warrior; 12-11-2012 at 08:31 AM.. Reason: additions
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2012, 09:04 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
33,008 posts, read 26,235,265 times
Reputation: 16189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
With reference to Alexander the Great, Flavius Josephus wrote the following;

'And when the book of Daniel was shewed him, wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended;'
[Antiquities of the Jews, book XI, chapter VIII, section 5]

Alexander the Great lived from about 356 BC. to about 323 BC. The book of Daniel was written in the 6th Century BC.

There a great deal of internal evidence which I am not going to go into that the book of Daniel was written by Daniel. You can do your own research on the matter.

Copies of the book of Daniel were also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

There is no scholar in his right mind that would suggest that the book of Daniel was written after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ or after the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, both of which are mentioned in Daniel 9:26.
In addition to the above, Josephus dates Daniel to the time of Nebuchadnezzar in Antiquities of the Jews, book X, where he devotes chapters X and XI to what befell Daniel at Babylon.

A short excerpt from chapter X, section 1: 'But now Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, took some of the most noble of the Jews that were children, and the kinsmen of Zedekiah their king, such as were remarkable for the beauty of their bodies and the comeliness of their countenances, and delivered them into the hands of tutors, and to the improvement to be made by them.' ... 'Now among these there were four of the family of Zedekiah, of most excellent dispositions; the one of whom was called Daniel, another called Ananias, another Misael, and the fourth Azarias; and the king of Babylon changed their names, and commanded that they should make make use of other names. Daniel he called Baltasar; Ananias, Shadrach; Misael; Meshach; and Anarias, Abenego.'

Josephus was a credible historian, and if the book of Daniel been written during the Maccabean period, he would not have been fooled into thinking that the book of Daniel existed prior to the time of Alexander the Great. This also indicates that the Jews of Josephus' day believed that the book of Daniel was written before the Maccabean period (167 to 63 B.C).


*****The claim of liberal scholars that the book of Daniel was written during the Maccabean period (167 to 63 B.C.) is also refuted by the book of 1 Maccabees itself.

1 Maccabees 2:59-60 speaks of Daniel and his companions Ananias, Misael, and Azarias, (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abenego). Daniel and his companions are spoken of in a sense of having lived long ago rather than as being contemporaneous with the Maccabean period. Daniel and his companions are mentioned in the company of other fathers of long ago; 'Call to remembrance what acts our fathers did in their time'. Since 1 Maccabees was written no later than the end of the 2 century B. C., and is speaking of Daniel as being of another time, then obviously the book of Daniel was not written during the Maccabean period.

1 Maccabees 2:51 Call to remembrance what acts our fathers did in their time; so shall ye receive great honour and an everlasting name. 52 Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness? 53 Joseph in the time of his distress kept the commandment and was made lord of Egypt. 54 Phinees our father in being zealous and fervent obtained the covenant of an everlasting priesthood.

55 Jesus for fulfilling the word was made a judge in Israel. 56 Caleb for bearing witness before the congregation received the heritage of the land. 57 David for being merciful possessed the throne of an everlasting kingdom. 58 Elias for being zealous and fervent for the law was taken up into heaven. 59 Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, by believing were saved out of the flame. 60 Daniel for his innocency was delivered from the mouth of lions.

1 Maccabees agrees with the Bible that Ananias, Azarias, and Misael (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abenego) were thrown into a furnace of blazing fire (Daniel 3:12-30,) [they were protected from the flames by God]; and that Daniel was thrown into the lions den (Daniel 6:7-28) [and protected by an angel].

To make it clear, 1 Maccabees 2:51-60 is not saying that Daniel was thrown into the lions den, and that his companions were thrown into the blazing furnace during the Maccabean period, but that these things happened during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

Or to put it yet another way, 1 Maccabees 2:51-60 does not treat the book of Daniel as a story written by a Maccabean Jew during the Maccabean period, but by associating Daniel with the lions den, and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abenego with the blazing furnace, events which the book of Daniel says happened during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (c.605-562 BC), 1 Maccabees becomes an extra-biblical source for the 6th century dating of the book of Daniel.

Therefore, Flavious Josephus and 1 Maccabees become two sources apart from the Bible which refute the liberal scholars late dating of Daniel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2012, 09:54 PM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
In addition to the above, Josephus dates Daniel to the time of Nebuchadnezzar in Antiquities of the Jews, book X, where he devotes chapters X and XI to what befell Daniel at Babylon.

A short excerpt from chapter X, section 1: 'But now Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, took some of the most noble of the Jews that were children, and the kinsmen of Zedekiah their king, such as were remarkable for the beauty of their bodies and the comeliness of their countenances, and delivered them into the hands of tutors, and to the improvement to be made by them.' ... 'Now among these there were four of the family of Zedekiah, of most excellent dispositions; the one of whom was called Daniel, another called Ananias, another Misael, and the fourth Azarias; and the king of Babylon changed their names, and commanded that they should make make use of other names. Daniel he called Baltasar; Ananias, Shadrach; Misael; Meshach; and Anarias, Abenego.'

Josephus was a credible historian, and if the book of Daniel been written during the Maccabean period, he would not have been fooled into thinking that the book of Daniel existed prior to the time of Alexander the Great. This also indicates that the Jews of Josephus' day believed that the book of Daniel was written before the Maccabean period (167 to 63 B.C).


*****The claim of liberal scholars that the book of Daniel was written during the Maccabean period (167 to 63 B.C.) is also refuted by the book of 1 Maccabees itself.

1 Maccabees 2:59-60 speaks of Daniel and his companions Ananias, Misael, and Azarias, (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abenego). Daniel and his companions are spoken of in a sense of having lived long ago rather than as being contemporaneous with the Maccabean period. Daniel and his companions are mentioned in the company of other fathers of long ago; 'Call to remembrance what acts our fathers did in their time'. Since 1 Maccabees was written no later than the end of the 2 century B. C., and is speaking of Daniel as being of another time, then obviously the book of Daniel was not written during the Maccabean period.

1 Maccabees 2:51 Call to remembrance what acts our fathers did in their time; so shall ye receive great honour and an everlasting name. 52 Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness? 53 Joseph in the time of his distress kept the commandment and was made lord of Egypt. 54 Phinees our father in being zealous and fervent obtained the covenant of an everlasting priesthood.

55 Jesus for fulfilling the word was made a judge in Israel. 56 Caleb for bearing witness before the congregation received the heritage of the land. 57 David for being merciful possessed the throne of an everlasting kingdom. 58 Elias for being zealous and fervent for the law was taken up into heaven. 59 Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, by believing were saved out of the flame. 60 Daniel for his innocency was delivered from the mouth of lions.

1 Maccabees agrees with the Bible that Ananias, Azarias, and Misael (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abenego) were thrown into a furnace of blazing fire (Daniel 3:12-30,) [they were protected from the flames by God]; and that Daniel was thrown into the lions den (Daniel 6:7-28) [and protected by an angel].

To make it clear, 1 Maccabees 2:51-60 is not saying that Daniel was thrown into the lions den, and that his companions were thrown into the blazing furnace during the Maccabean period, but that these things happened during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

Or to put it yet another way, 1 Maccabees 2:51-60 does not treat the book of Daniel as a story written by a Maccabean Jew during the Maccabean period, but by associating Daniel with the lions den, and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abenego with the blazing furnace, events which the book of Daniel says happened during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (c.605-562 BC), 1 Maccabees becomes an extra-biblical source for the 6th century dating of the book of Daniel.

Therefore, Flavious Josephus and 1 Maccabees become two sources apart from the Bible which refute the liberal scholars late dating of Daniel.
First, don't think that everything Joshepus wrote was absolute fact or that he got all of his facts straight, as noted earlier.

Second, nothing necessitates that all of what we have today, as the 'book' of Daniel, was written at a single time in the past.

The Aramaic section (which is the section you quoted), 2:4b through 7:28, being in the Imperial style, which was appoximately 700 BCE - 300 BCE and faded out of use and changed by 200 BCE affords that range for the possible composition of the Aramaic section. And nothing precludes further editing and additions.

Third, the date for the oldest DSS fragment of Daniel (there is only 8 of them) is dated to the late 2nd century (150-200 BCE). Yet it has the style of Imperial Aramaic consistent with the range date above or consistent with the intention to copy the style of the autograph which could have been written after Alexander's death around 300 BCE.

Fourth, it is clear that chapters 1-7 are not written in the 1st person and the person writing indicates that it was at least after the reign of Cyrus.

Nothing necessitates that there could not have been older sections that had been edited once people like Alexander, Antiochus, and some of the priests in the Maccabean Period or beyond had come onto the scence.

For some Linguistic analysis see this article: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pd...el_kitchen.pdf

Summary. What, then, shall we say of the Aramaic of Daniel? It is, in itself; as long and
generally agreed, integrally a part of that Imperial Aramaic which gathered impetus from at
least the seventh century BC and was in full use until c. 300 BC, thereafter falling away or
fossilizing where it was not native and developing new forms and usages where it was the
spoken tongue. If proper allowance be made for attested scribal usage in the Biblical Near
East (including orthographical and morphological change, both official and unofficial), then
there is nothing to decide the date of composition of the Aramnaic of Daniel on the grounds
of Aramaic anywhere between the late sixth and the second century BC. Some points hint at
an early (especially pre-300), not late, date—but in large part could be argued to be survivals
till the second century BC, just as third—second century spellings or grammatical forms must
be proved to be original to the composition of the work before a sixth—fifth century date
could be excluded. The date of the book of Daniel, in short, cannot be decided upon linguistic
grounds alone. It is equally obscurantist to exclude dogmatically a sixth-fifth (or fourth)
century date on the one hand, or to hold such a date as mechanically proven on the other, as
far as the Aramaic is concerned.

Forgot to mention since you like the Maccabees - they thought the 70 weeks were already fulfilled - but on that point you will disagree.

Last edited by 2K5Gx2km; 12-11-2012 at 10:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top