| Author | Message | ||
     Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 4622 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
The Hebrew Tanakh arranges their scripture much differently than Christians have. Daniel is not among the prophets in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) but is placed among the writings with the Song of Song, Ruth, Lamentations, and Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, ending with Chronicles. Some of the reasons offered by the Interpreter's Bible for a later date of Daniel: 1. In 3:5 the name of one of the musical instruments uses a word that is not only Greek but found with this meaning nowhere in Greek literature before the 2nd century B.C. 2. The name "Chaldeans" is also used in a special sense it did not acquire until long after the Exile (1:3-5). 3. The fact that the book in the Hebrew Bible is placed among the Writings rather than the Prophets indicates a late date: if it had been in existence before ca. 200 B.C. it probably would have been included rather among the Prophets, as it now stands in the English Bible. 4. Writing ca. 180 Jeshua ben Sira lists the heroes of the faith from Enoch, Noah, and Abraham through Nehemiah (Ecclus. 44-49) but makes no mention of Daniel, evidently because he does not know of the book about him. 5. On the other hand, Daniel and his 3 companions are mentioned in 1 Macc(2-:59-60), probably composed late in the 2nd century and fragments of the book apparently produced about the same time have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. These data support evidence in the visions pointing to almost the precise year in which the book was composed. We read in I,II Macc. of a terrible period in Israael's history. Antiochus IV Ephiphanes (175-163), had the idea of uniting all his realm culturally and religiously. It was probably on Dec. 6, 167 that the temple was desecrated by the erection of an altar to Zeus Olympus (I Macc. 1:56; II Macc. 6:2-5). In Daniel, this event is referred to specifically as the "abomination that makes desolate, and alluded to a number of times. On the other hand, though the early reconsecration of the temple and resumption of worship is foretold, the prediction is too vague to have been written after the actual rededication under Judas Maccabeus, which occurred 3 years later. Thus the book must have been written within this 30-year period probably near the end of it. | ||
| Glenn Hansen (Hansen) member Username: Hansen Post Number: 159 Registered: 7-2006 Rating: N/A |
Elaine, if you would put as much effort to posting things that inspire confidence in the Bible instead of trying to tear it down, you would better serve humanity. The world is full of people flailing in the darkness. It's easy to latch onto a particular view as set forth by others, without really understanding the essence of the matter. I certainly have done that with my embrace of the Adventist apocalyptic. If you want to do something useful, how about considering both sides of the question and then set forth both views, and explain why you favor one view over the other. Your loss of faith in the veracity of Scripture is a tragedy. (Message edited by hansen on May 2, 2007) | ||
| christopher charles william mack (Chris_mack) member Username: Chris_mack Post Number: 33 Registered: 9-2006 Rating: N/A |
Elaine, I wish you would consider the WEIGHTIER POINT that Jesus Himself quoted and validated Daniel. I am sitting in a room with literally hundreds of the best theological books that money can buy. I question everything. What readily becomes apparent is that there is a wide divergence of views among theologians. I could care less what the Interpreters Bible says. My faith is in Jesus Christ. When He validated Daniel by name, that settles it for me. If you read some of my previous posts and checked out the texts that I mentioned, you might take on a different understanding. Read the book of Daniel in one careful and prayerful sitting and you might change your mind on this matter. As I understand it, you have a lot of respect for Des Ford's view. Read what he has to say. Glenn, I read where you said; "The 457 to 1844 Adventist scheme just overwhelmes my objectivity"; and you spoke of "My embrace of the Adventist apocalyptic." Objectivity is a mirage. We need to continually re-evaluate our views. What we first learn on any subject programs our brains and we subconsciously attempt to align all new info with what we think that we already know. You may have noticed that I keep recommending various BOOKS in my posts. The way to contain to grow is to read. The way to grow is to read not even good books, but to read the BEST BOOKS. Without new info, we just keep going round and round the same mulberry bush. Another way to grow is to dialogue with the brightest minds that you can make your acquaintance with. For this reason, for over 20 years I have sought out and made acquaintance with these people. You will be surprized at how most of them are very approachable. The "Adventist apocalyptic" is in a time warp. Nothing changes. It is a massive brainwashing scheme. Most of the Adventist theologians shudder when the Evangelist comes to town and presents himself as an 'expert' on prophecy and on Revelation. If you get them off of their prooftext schedule, most of them are completely lost. Here's a book on Revelation for you. This is probably the best book on Rev. ever written to date. It is "The New International Greeek Testament Commentary" on "The Book of Revelation" by G. K. Beale published in 1999 by Eerdmans. This is one huge chunk of premium info in one place. Get this book. Read it. You will see that the Adventist apocalyptic, by contrast is weighed and found wanting. The first step in actually becoming 'objective' is to come to the crystal clear recognition that you are not objective. Then you are free to question everything, including yourself. We all need to place truth and honesty over our own pride of opinion. I remember in all honesty and integrity strongly arguing for a particular point with a friend of mine. I just kept banging away on it. It was in regards to the Edenic cov. In all the discussion, a new piece of info that I had not seen before was presented in a way that I had not seen it before. Upon more study and reflection, I changed my mind. I have changed my mind on a lot of things. When you spoke of something OVERWHELMING YOUR OBJECTIVITY, you were right. You knew it all the time. You just need to take the next logical step and re-evaluate. I have had to struggle for every insight. I have had questions that took years to show some light. For example, try explaining Dan. 11 without a historical context as so many Adventists have. Louis Were tried and failed. We all have the habit of continuing to try to pound square pegs into round holes. When we finally get the correct paradigm on a particular subject, everything flows. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Find 1844 in the N.T. It's not there! Can you imagine having a major doctrine in a Christian church formulated from an O.T. text that is not sustained in the N.T. and allowing it to separate brethren? On the other hand, the doctrine that Jesus is the Sanctuary and that the Sanctuary was restored to its rightful state at the ress. of Jesus is prominent in the N.T. Once you see it, you will never go back. Keep slugging, Blessings on you. | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1813 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Elaine, I wish you would consider the WEIGHTIER POINT that Jesus Himself quoted and validated Daniel. We really need to be a lot more open when looking at the things in the Bible. Jesus quoted Daniel the prophet, he said nothing of when Daniel wrote, he said nothing of Daniel being a literal historical figure. What He does is quote from one of the prophetic works of the Jewish religious history. He quotes it in its apocalyptic nature which could be just as applicable if Daniel was written in the 6th century or the 2nd century. What is funny is that we know that the Genesis stories were written at least 1500 years after any of the events depicted would have occurred, by traditional Christian dating methods. If those could be accurate portrayals of history in the traditional view why could not the same thing happen for the book of Daniel. I am not saying Genesis is historical but just using it as an example. We know very little about who wrote what in the Old Testament and most books are really anonymously written and that includes the books of Moses which is a traditional view not something based upon the writings themselves or any other way of determining who wrote them. We really need to discard a lot of the assumption we make about the Bible. New Protestants.com | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 3108 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
We really need to discard a lot of the assumption we make about the Bible. I agree. This should be extended to discarding a lot of the assumptions we make about everything. On the other hand, we should also admit that understanding history is a construction of thought and assumptions. Glenn's idea of "considering both sides of the question and then set forth both views, and explain why you favor one view over the other," makes good sense to me. It takes time to do this kind of thorough analysis. Anyone who can do it, serves the group seeking perspective. The British, or Canadian, invention of the Loyal Opposition, LO, helps illustrate how a discussion can proceed. It is the LO's role to analyze for error the current government's program and statements. There usually is no question as to the LO's love of country. But, even the people on both sides say stupid things, or things which push beyond good sense. The difference between a "good" politician and another one is that the "good" politician can criticize the other by appearing more supportive of the democratic ideals. | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 4625 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
There are more than sufficient apologists on this forum. One needn't present both sides, but just read both sides and then study for yourself. But, studying, if limited only to apologetics and those that only confirm one's view is not studying "both sides." For someone desiring "both sides" there are more than enough sources for his satisfaction. Each reader here should get a variety of opinions, without expecting each poster to present both. To say that what the Interpreter's Bible says is insignificant, is either a "prejudging" or dismissal, based on having previously read it. Which is it? | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 3112 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
For someone desiring "both sides" there are more than enough sources for his satisfaction. Each reader here should get a variety of opinions, without expecting each poster to present both. It is much more difficult to serve the discussion than to be merely part of the discussion. | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 3113 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
Some essays supporting a 6th Century writing of the Book of Daniel. THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT FOR THE DATE OF DANIEL http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Linguistic-Argument-for-the-Dat.pdf Evidences Relating to the Date of the Book of Daniel http://www.tektonics.org/guest/danielblast.html The Aramaic of Daniel http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/daniel_kitchen.pdf Introduction to Daniel http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/introduction-to-daniel Was Daniel written AFTER the events he foretold? Section One: The Dead Sea Scrolls Manuscript Data http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3a.html Literary References Section http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3b.html THE BOOK OF DANIEL AND THE SECOND-TEMPLE PERIOD http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/InTest/Daniel.htm Jon Paulien discusses The End of Historicism? Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical Apocalyptica http://www.andrews.edu/~jonp/JATS%2520Apocalyptic%25201.html | ||
| Glenn Hansen (Hansen) member Username: Hansen Post Number: 160 Registered: 7-2006 Rating: N/A |
Elaine, Apparently you consider contributing to theological discussions simply copying and pasting material from sources that require little effort to find. The general thrust of this material displays a view of Scripture that those of us who consider the Bible worthy of study have rejected. Why would you interject this kind of stuff into a discussion that assumes and appreciates the Bible as God's inspired word? Among other things, it is simply rude. If you wish to sow seeds of doubt and skepticism, I would appreciate it if you would start a thread that devotes itself to that subject. I'm sure there are others who will happily wallow with you. By doing so, you will spare others who have, for good reason, rejected the views with which you are enamoured. A lot of "professional" theological study concerns itself with irrelevancies, so much so that the spiritual and redemptive dimensions of Scripture are lost sight of. I used to live on a ranch in Arizona that had some excellent water. There were two large wells and several natural springs. The water was exceptional. For convenience, another well was put in close to the residences at a midpoint between the two large wells. How surprised and disappointed we were when the new well brought forth a bitter tasting water that actually had a foul odor. A poison well in the midst of numerous sources of clear, sweet water. How sad. Incidentally, One of Don's sources, the article by Keneth Kitchen, discusses at length the implications of the Greek words for musical instruments found in Daniel. (Message edited by hansen on May 3, 2007) | ||
| christopher charles william mack (Chris_mack) member Username: Chris_mack Post Number: 34 Registered: 9-2006 Rating: N/A |
Don Sands, Thanks for the excellent material. I hope that everyone following this thread has checked it out. | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1814 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Why would you interject this kind of stuff into a discussion that assumes and appreciates the Bible as God's inspired word? Among other things, it is simply rude. There is nothing rude about listing scholarly material about the book of Daniel. There are actually some good arguments for both views. It is simply wrong to assume one view sees the Bible as more inspired then another. I wrote about this on my blog when the subject was part of the lesson discussions. It is very interesting that when historians were asked what the most significant event of history was they voted as number 1 the Greek conquests of Alexander the Great. Because it spread Greek language and concepts through out a large part of the then known world. That is why I think that a later date of Daniel is probably correct, as it would have just not been likely at all for the Greek words to be used in Daniel prior to Alexander's conquests. That an the fact that 3 of the 4 kingdoms are acutally named by the book of Daniel something that would be very rare or more likely unknown in other Old Testament prophecy. New Protestants.com | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 3116 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
The Book of Daniel has captured the interest of the religious and scholarly world. Daniel has shaken Adventism to its core. The prophetic lines are so clear that people view Daniel through the glasses of their world view. Regarding Elaine's posts here: I think she serves the discussion well by presenting the strongest possible argument for her views. I have found that an honest facing of the facts and suppositions does wonders for clarity of thought. | ||
| Glenn Hansen (Hansen) member Username: Hansen Post Number: 161 Registered: 7-2006 Rating: N/A |
Ron, I would refer you to the article written by Kitchen. He, a person who is a real scholar of these matters, carefully reviews the issue of the Greek musical instruments mentioned in Daniel. He concludes that they in no way require a late date for Daniel. Note the following introduction to his consideration of the matter: "The common assumption about the significance of these three words in Daniel is pithily enshrined in S. R. Driver’s oft-quoted dictum:68 ‘the Greek words demand…a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (BC 332).’ It is widely assumed, even today, that—before Alexander’s conquest of the Orient—Greek words could have no place in Ancient Near Eastern languages, and least of all in a city so far removed from the East Mediterranean seaboard as is Babylon. However, these easy assumptions of Greek influence in the East only after c. 332 BC are in large measure misleading and erroneous, as the following evidence makes clear." Have you and Elaine carefully considered the evidence that he reviews? Are either of you familiar with the evidence? To objectively consider the type of criticism that Elaine seems to enjoy cutting and pasting, one would have to be a specialist in not only the languages but the history of the period. Few of us here are qualified to swim these depths. I realize, unfortunately, that Adventism requires neither Christian belief nor sympathy. Many of its adherents are simply members of a social club of sorts. But normally, people who belong to social clubs have some regard for the give and take of common intercourse. From where I sit, the activities of some on this board would be dismissed as trolling on other boards. If one enters a chat room for fat ladies, for example, and begins berating people who are overweight, that is not acceptable discourse for that room. It is trolling. In the past, one could banned from posting, on AOL, for doing that. The same goes for rooms dedicated to homosexuals and their sympathizers. If one wants to participate in discussions in that room, it is assumed that there will be no overt attacks against the gay lifestyle. In a discussion regarding Biblical matters regarding prophetic elements, one who introduces ideas into the discussion that essentialy dismiss Scripture as a fraudulent document, and, by implication, suggest that people who believe the Bible are either naive or morons, is either trolling or rude,which are essentially the same thing. As I previously mentioned, discussions into this aspect of the Bible usually take up a lot of time and are not particularly useful to individuals who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. And, without disrespecting any one in particular, I would say that there are few people posting here who have the type of linguistic and historical knowledge to do anything other than parrot the views of others. It's unfortunate that people without faith in Scripture can not just leave it alone rather than besmirch it in some misguided campaign to do what? Deprive others of the comfort and solace that resting in Jesus has provided? What a legacy. (Message edited by hansen on May 3, 2007) | ||
| Glenn Hansen (Hansen) member Username: Hansen Post Number: 162 Registered: 7-2006 Rating: N/A |
"The obvious inference, when one remembers the Greek relations with the Near East from the eighth century BC onwards, is that the Aramaic of Daniel could have been written at any time from c. 539 BC onwards until just after the fall of the Persian Empire." Kitchen's summary after discussing the three "Greek" musical instruments. | ||
| Neal Walls (Nwalls) member Username: Nwalls Post Number: 2067 Registered: 2-2006 Rating: N/A |
A poison well in the midst of numerous sources of clear, sweet water. How sad. Sounds like a good analogy for a white man in China. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens. WG Sumner | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 4626 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Glenn, I apologize. I was unaware that JR had appointed you arbiter for either choosing or deleting messages that did not meet an unstated agenda. Last time I checked (and I've been a participant here on the old one before JR began this one), only censored obscene or vulgar language is refused and perhaps deleted. Check the forum title: "Adventists of Tomorrow" which would indicate that it is not glued to the past but is exploring what the future can offer to Adventists. If there are those who fear discovering new information on the Bible or interpretation, then there are certainly other forums which adhere to that format. For the others, we are willing to explore and are not satisfied with what was previously taught or learned, but realize that truth is never static but is only a journey, not a goal. | ||
| Glenn Hansen (Hansen) member Username: Hansen Post Number: 163 Registered: 7-2006 Rating: N/A |
"Adventists of Tomorow". Is that a code word for scoffers, skeptics, opponents of Christian faith? It doesn't surprise me that former Adventists end up on that road. In my case, I was a Christian before getting involved with what I now consider to be a legalistic cult. Of course the host of cultural Adventists who have never had an experience with Christ outside the context of Adventism, are left with nothing but a shipwreck of faith, once they discover the lies that Adventism propagates. But for some, their new found "Christian liberty" simply means multiple trips to Starbucks, pork chops and seafood, or masturbation without restraint. It makes perfect sense that they would become the opponents of those who are are Bible believing Christians, since they are not really Christians themselves. "Tomorrow" offers those who reject Christ and the Bible nothing that I covet. If your idea of discovering "new information" about the Bible is reviewing the "higher critical" theories of second rate commentaries, available to any high school kid, that's unfortunate. It didn't take Don a great deal of time to post several links, at least one of which discusses at some depth exactly why the information you posted about Daniel is wrong. Were you aware of the arguments that contradict a late date for Daniel? Why are you posting information that discredits Scripture, when a good argument can be made to the contrary? Is it because your "faith," like your apology, is insincere? (Message edited by Hansen on May 3, 2007) | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 3117 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
The Christian seeks to help bring about the salvation of all. Sometimes one can be exasperated with those who we feel should be showing faith rather than skepticism. But, on second thought, we can say with Paul that our own eternal welfare can be sacrificed for those we hope to help. Another way to look at it, from a faith perspective, have I prayed for the person who opposes my ideas? |
