| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"tw" |
| Date: |
10 Nov 2004 06:19:29 AM |
| Object: |
Let's see if Tony will step ino the "Realm of ideas" . The Book Of Daniel |
(Nicely on topic too)
What do you think of the overwhelming evidence which points to the Book of
Daniel being a fake, in as much as it was almost certainly written during
the 2nd century BC, thereby making it some 400 years younger than its
authors would have you believe?
.
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's see if Tony will step ino the "Realm of ideas" . The Book Of Daniel |
10 Nov 2004 07:18:31 AM |
|
|
"tw"
wrote:
(Nicely on topic too)
What do you think of the overwhelming evidence which points to the Book of
Daniel being a fake, in as much as it was almost certainly written during
the 2nd century BC, thereby making it some 400 years younger than its
authors would have you believe?
Evidence from whom? Liberal Theologians who do not believe in miracles?
My best answer to your loaded question is this; Jesus said that Daniel was a
Prophet and that he spoke of the last days, I need no further proof.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's see if Tony will step ino the "Realm of ideas" . The Book Of Daniel |
10 Nov 2004 07:41:47 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041110081831.12272.00000573@mb-m28.aol.com...
"tw"
wrote:
(Nicely on topic too)
What do you think of the overwhelming evidence which points to the Book
of
Daniel being a fake, in as much as it was almost certainly written during
the 2nd century BC, thereby making it some 400 years younger than its
authors would have you believe?
Evidence from whom?
From the book itself:
1.. It is listed in the Writings of the Jewish canon, rather than the
Prophets. This indicates that Daniel was written after the collection of
prophetic books had been closed (sometime after 300 BCE).
2.. Parts of the book (2:4-7:28) were written in Aramaic, which suggests a
later date when Aramaic had become the common language.
3.. The author of Daniel used Persian and Greek words that would not have
been known to residents of Babylon in the 6th century BCE.
4.. The book contains numerous historical inaccuracies when dealing with
6th century BCE Babylonian history. Such mistakes would not have been made
by an important official in the employ of King Nebuchadneazzar.
5.. Daniel is the only book in the Old Testament in which angels are given
names (such as Gabriel in 8:16 and 9:21 and Michael in 10:13, 10:21, and
12:1 ). Elsewhere in the Bible, names for angels only appear in the in the
Apocrypha and the New Testament.
6.. The absence of Daniel's name in the list of Israel's great men in
Ecclesiasticus.
7.. Nebuchadrezzar is spelled Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel, which is the way
the king's name was spelled, under Greek influence, at a later time.
8.. In 2:2 the king's wise men are called "Chaldeans". But at the time of
Nebuchadrezzar, "Chaldean" would have referred to a nationality. It was only
centuries later that this word came to mean sorcerer or astrologer.
Liberal Theologians who do not believe in miracles?
No, Bible scholars who know their history...
My best answer to your loaded question
What's loaded about it?
is this; Jesus said that Daniel was a
Prophet and that he spoke of the last days, I need no further proof.
...and what a predictably cowardly avoidance of the "realm of ideas" that
was.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's see if Tony will step ino the "Realm of ideas" . The Book Of Daniel |
10 Nov 2004 04:44:26 PM |
|
|
In article <cmt0pp$caj$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
(Nicely on topic too)
What do you think of the overwhelming evidence which points to the Book of
Daniel being a fake, in as much as it was almost certainly written during
the 2nd century BC, thereby making it some 400 years younger than its
authors would have you believe?
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to make the claim that the Book of Daniel was "a
fake". It was extremely popular for a very long while to put your favorite
prophet's name as the 'author' of the book, but since everyone (at the time)
knew it hadn't been written by said prophet, it was hardly an attempt to deceive
anyone. It's not their fault that things have changed in the past millenia or
two!
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's see if Tony will step ino the "Realm of ideas" . The Book Of Daniel |
11 Nov 2004 09:26:40 AM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:eRwkd.433$qv5.64@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <cmt0pp$caj$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>, "tw" <no@no.com>
wrote:
(Nicely on topic too)
What do you think of the overwhelming evidence which points to the Book
of
Daniel being a fake, in as much as it was almost certainly written during
the 2nd century BC, thereby making it some 400 years younger than its
authors would have you believe?
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to make the claim that the Book of Daniel
was "a
fake". It was extremely popular for a very long while to put your
favorite
prophet's name as the 'author' of the book, but since everyone (at the
time)
knew it hadn't been written by said prophet, it was hardly an attempt to
deceive
anyone. It's not their fault that things have changed in the past
millenia or
two!
To re-iterate, what I meant by "fake" was that the time of its writing has
been , well, misrepresented.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's see if Tony will step ino the "Realm of ideas" . The Book Of Daniel |
11 Nov 2004 10:12:03 AM |
|
|
The Book of Daniel was put into the Septuagint for a reason, because the people
of that time knew that it wasn't a current work, but one of history that was
read for inspiration even during the time of the Maccabees.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's see if Tony will step ino the "Realm of ideas" . The Book Of Daniel |
12 Nov 2004 03:28:51 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041111111203.08198.00000504@mb-m04.aol.com...
The Book of Daniel was put into the Septuagint for a reason, because the
people
of that time knew that it wasn't a current work, but one of history that
was
read for inspiration even during the time of the Maccabees.
Well, all avaliable evidence indicates it was WRITTEN around the time of the
maccabees, probably slightly before. There seem to be many references to the
persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes in it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's see if Tony will step ino the "Realm of ideas" . The Book Of Daniel |
12 Nov 2004 07:43:21 AM |
|
|
"tw"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041111111203.08198.00000504@mb-m04.aol.com...
The Book of Daniel was put into the Septuagint for a reason, because the
people
of that time knew that it wasn't a current work, but one of history that
was
read for inspiration even during the time of the Maccabees.
Well, all avaliable evidence indicates it was WRITTEN around the time of the
maccabees, probably slightly before. There seem to be many references to the
persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes in >it.
Well Tommy, if it was written before that time, and it refrences Antiochus
Epiphanes, then it is a prophectic book.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's see if Tony will step ino the "Realm of ideas" . The Book Of Daniel |
12 Nov 2004 07:58:36 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041112084321.21753.00000387@mb-m12.aol.com...
"tw"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041111111203.08198.00000504@mb-m04.aol.com...
The Book of Daniel was put into the Septuagint for a reason, because
the
people
of that time knew that it wasn't a current work, but one of history
that
was
read for inspiration even during the time of the Maccabees.
Well, all avaliable evidence indicates it was WRITTEN around the time of
the
maccabees, probably slightly before. There seem to be many references to
the
persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes in >it.
Well Tommy, if it was written before that time
eh? Judas Maccabite started the revolt in 165 BC, Antiochus epiphanes
reigned 175-63. Hence his persecutions predate the maccabites, don't they?
Or was he only into persecuting Jews for the last two years of his reign? In
which case I modify my statement to "written after the last years of the
reign of Antiochus Epiphanes".
, and it refrences Antiochus
Epiphanes, then it is a prophectic book.
See above...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
