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.
1) The author of Daniel gets the history completely wrong; 2) he gets facts wrong that Daniel as a high ranking officer would have known; 3) we have Greek, Persian and Babylonian records that show Darius the Mede could not have existed; 4) we have the irrational and strained recalculation of the mathematics to get the failed 70 years of Jeremiah to point to someone considered a messiah (Onias III); and 5) the "prophecies" that are accurate to 167 BC, but fail after that date.
They are 5 reasons to believe a late authorship. There is no reason to believe Daniel was written around the time of Cyrus the Great.
“ The contrast between the wizard of the narratives and the passive medium of the visions makes it impossible to believe that the stories and the revelations were composed by the same writer. The author of the visions… (whose true identity we do not know) wrote at the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (176‑164 B.C.E.). But he spoke in the name of Daniel, who was is already known to readers from the stories which glorified the wisdom of the ancient seer.” - https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...ook-of-daniel/
“ The contrast between the wizard of the narratives and the passive medium of the visions makes it impossible to believe that the stories and the revelations were composed by the same writer. The author of the visions… (whose true identity we do not know) wrote at the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (176‑164 B.C.E.). But he spoke in the name of Daniel, who was is already known to readers from the stories which glorified the wisdom of the ancient seer.” - https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...ook-of-daniel/
It seems that you are accurate...
Only if the text is interpreted carnally or in worldly terms involving history, but not if interpreted spiritually about spiritual things (like religions, etc.),
Only if the text is interpreted carnally or in worldly terms involving history, but not if interpreted spiritually about spiritual things (like religions, etc.),
So I am accurate about it historically, but not accurate because it is about religion, even though I must be accurate because carnally and in worldly terms it was a war about the Jewish religion?
Daniel 7
2 Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea.
3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.
4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.
5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.
6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it stamped with the feet of it, brake in pieces, and devoured the dung: and it was different from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
חָטָא (Chita)
to miss, to sin, miss the goal or path of right and duty, to incur guilt, incur penalty by sin, forfeit
If this malarkey doesn't cause one to question deeply their "beliefs", then they will swallow any bucket of lies in their cowardly quest for eternal life
Only if the text is interpreted carnally or in worldly terms involving history, but not if interpreted spiritually about spiritual things (like religions, etc.),
"Spiritual" is utter gibberish. A meaningless term used by meaningless people in a doomed attempt to give themselves something to hang onto as they live their futile empty lives. It's a mental Teddy Bear for the cowardly and empty people.
"Spiritual" is utter gibberish. A meaningless term used by meaningless people in a doomed attempt to give themselves something to hang onto as they live their futile empty lives. It's a mental Teddy Bear for the cowardly and empty people.
Everything that you experience and interpret consciously is a spiritual experience because your consciousness IS your Spirit, Salty. Without consciousness, what we experience as melody would not exist, nor would love. Our concern should be what kind of Spirit and spiritual experiences we are allowing ourselves to bring into existence.
Everything that you experience and interpret consciously is a spiritual experience because your consciousness IS your Spirit (emphasis added), Salty. Without consciousness, what we experience as melody would not exist, nor would love. Our concern should be what kind of Spirit and spiritual experiences we are allowing ourselves to bring into existence.
I don't think very many people agree with your definition of "spirit".
If this malarkey doesn't cause one to question deeply their "beliefs", then they will swallow any bucket of lies in their cowardly quest for eternal life
Nobody should "believe" anything.
You can know that you know.
You can know that you think.
But you should never under any circumstances "think that you know" (i.e. believe).
Daniel, the book that contradicts historical facts about Cyrus, the Medes and Persians, but does get the predictions about the war of the Maccabees correct until 167 BC before getting everything after that wrong.
Why, it is as if Daniel was invented in 167 BC, or shortly after to explain why a prophecy in Jeremiah did not come true, and then that new, improved prophecy also failed.
Ooooops....
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Using Daniel as worldly prophesy, you would have to exclude Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome from contention as the beasts (kingdoms) because despite its successes Rome did NOT devour the whole earth (and the world has not ended).
Rome has nothing to do with anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Daniel's dream about the four beasts in Daniel 7 is controversial because people keep trying to use a carnal and secular historical bias instead of a spiritual perspective for interpretation.
That's because it was never intended to be spiritual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Secular kingdoms are NOT the focus of Daniel's dream in Daniel 7.
They most certainly are.
Daniel is probably modeled after the Ugarit Dan'el, a folk hero, and since the Hebrews were never in Egypt and always lived next to Ugarit -- right up until its total destruction -- they would have plagiarized it just like they plagiarized everything else, not to mention that Hebrew is a dialect of Ugaritic Aramaic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Nonsense. There is no reason to believe in a late authorship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
1) The author of Daniel gets the history completely wrong; 2) he gets facts wrong that Daniel as a high ranking officer would have known; 3) we have Greek, Persian and Babylonian records that show Darius the Mede could not have existed; 4) we have the irrational and strained recalculation of the mathematics to get the failed 70 years of Jeremiah to point to someone considered a messiah (Onias III); and 5) the "prophecies" that are accurate to 167 BC, but fail after that date.
They are 5 reasons to believe a late authorship. There is no reason to believe Daniel was written around the time of Cyrus the Great.
The Book was written about 150 BCE by a guy who thought the Yahweh-thing was gonna come and set up his everlasting gobstopper, uh, I mean kingdom.
The lion is Babylon, the bear is Media, the leopard Persia and the beast with the ten horns is Greece. Three of the horns get uprooted by a small horn which sprouts and speaks with haughty arrogance, because that is Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
Esther, Judith, Tobit and Daniel were all written by Greek-speaking Hebrews and there is an interesting theory that these were actually novels and not canon scripture. They were written during the Maccabee Revolt to inspire, just as the idiot Tom Clancy wrote Red Storm Rising and The Hunt for Red October to inspire Americans in their never-ending campaign against The Evil Empire.
What makes that theory compelling is all four books make use of fictional characters as literary devices and all four books deviate from known history, meaning they contradict Kings I & II and Chronicles I & II.
Okay, so Darius is fictitious.
Everyone alive at that time knew that Astyages was the last Median King.
Everyone knew that Cyrus was not a Persian.
Cyrus was Median. He was born in Mede and his mother was Median princess, and in the ancient/old world, it was your mother who determined your ethnicity as well as your status, meaning if your mother was a slave, then so were you.
Cyrus only ruled from Persia, but that doesn't make him Persian just as the German kings ruling Britain (or Belgium or Romania or Greece) didn't make them British.
The Hebrews spoke Greek and were immersed in Greek culture. That's why the Septuagint was written in Greek, otherwise there'd be no Hebrews to read the texts.
That brings us to Hesiod and his four ages and what were those ages?
Gosh, gold, silver, bronze, and iron. Four ages, four empires, four animal things.
Get it? Sesame Street was brought to you today by the number "4" and the letter "chi."
The empires are as viewed by contemporaries. Read Sura. His chronology is Assyria, Media, Persia and then Greece, and then Rome follows, and that's how that part of the world view it.
After Alexander dies, his kingdom is divided into four parts (that's the ram) and the reason "Daniel" pays more attention to the kings of the north and the kings of the south than the kings of the east and the kings of the west is because Jerusalem is right in the middle of the fight between the Ptolemies and Seleucids.
Now you know the beast with 10 heads is Greece and as "Daniel" reckons it, from the true successor state to the end, so the 10 heads are the 10 kings. They were Alexander the Great, Seleucus I Nicator, Antiochus I Soter, Antiochus II Theos, Seleucus II Callinicus, Seleucus III Soter Ceraunus, and Antiochus III the Great. As mentioned previously, Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the little horn that takes out three horns, namely, King Seleucus IV Philopator, Demetrius and Antiochus the Younger.
Remember, "Daniel" is all about the revolt and the abomination of the Temple.
If this malarkey doesn't cause one to question deeply their "beliefs", then they will swallow any bucket of lies in their cowardly quest for eternal life
To be fair, Daniel is an apocalyptic work and those beasts are meant to represent something metaphorically, not be real critters. It is a literary device, not the telling of actual events.
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.
