Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 01-25-2008, 06:37 PM

I'm just trying to understand opposing viewpoints. Since the dead sea scrolls contains a copy of the book of daniel, which accurately describes Antiochus, obviously the "original book of daniel had to be written after 164 BC. If only there was an accurate way to date the copy of the book of daniel in the dead sea scrolls!

Johnny Skeptic · 01-25-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I'm just trying to understand opposing viewpoints. Since the dead sea scrolls contains a copy of the book of daniel, which accurately describes Antiochus, obviously the "original book of daniel had to be written after 164 BC. If only there was an accurate way to date the copy of the book of daniel in the dead sea scrolls!

Well, if God had predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur that have occured, there would be no need to discuss whether or not he can predict the future. If the God of the Bible exists, he could easily have proven to everyone's satisfaction that he can predict the future thousands of years ago, but surely you already know that a God can accomplish anything that he wants to accomplish.

arnoldo · 01-25-2008, 07:28 PM

Quote:

DATE OF THE BOOK
The Daniel fragments found at Qumran also speak to the issue of Daniel’s authenticity. As mentioned earlier, conventional scholarship generally places the final composition of Daniel during the second century B.C. Yet, the book claims to have been written by a Daniel who lived in the sixth century B.C. However, the Dead Sea fragments of Daniel present compelling evidence for the earlier, biblical date of this book.
The relatively copious remains of Daniel indicate the importance of this book to the Qumran community. Further, there are clear indications that this book was considered “canonical” for the community, which meant it was recognized as an authoritative book on a par with other biblical books (e.g., Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, Psalms). The canonicity of Daniel at Qumran is indicated, not only by the prolific fragments, but by the manner in which it is referenced in other materials. One fragment employs the quotation, “which was written in the book of Daniel the prophet.” This phrase, similar to Jesus’ reference to “Daniel the prophet” (Matthew 24:15), was a formula typically applied to quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran (see Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:51).
The canonical status of Daniel at Qumran is important to the date and authenticity of the book. If, as critical scholars allege, Daniel reached its final form around 160 B.C., how could it have attained canonical status at Qumran in a mere five or six decades? While we do not know exactly how long it took for a book to reach such authoritative status, it appears that more time is needed for this development (see Bruce, 1988, pp. 27-42). Interestingly, even before the most recent publication of Daniel fragments, R.K. Harrison recognized that the canonical status of Daniel at Qumran militated against its being a composition of the Maccabean era, and served as confirmation of its authenticity (1969, p. 1126-1127).
Although Harrison made this observation in 1969, over three decades before the large cache of Cave 4 documents was made available to the general and scholarly public, no new evidence has refuted it. On the contrary, the newly released texts from Qumran have confirmed this conclusion. The canonical acceptance of Daniel at Qumran indicates the antiquity of the book’s composition—certainly much earlier than the Maccabean period. Hence, the most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts offer confirmation of Daniel’s authenticity; it was written when the Bible says it was written.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/266

I guess the people who wrote the book of daniel deluded themselves into thinking it was prophetic?

makerowner · 01-25-2008, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

DATE OF THE BOOK
The Daniel fragments found at Qumran also speak to the issue of Daniel’s authenticity. As mentioned earlier, conventional scholarship generally places the final composition of Daniel during the second century B.C. Yet, the book claims to have been written by a Daniel who lived in the sixth century B.C. However, the Dead Sea fragments of Daniel present compelling evidence for the earlier, biblical date of this book.
The relatively copious remains of Daniel indicate the importance of this book to the Qumran community. Further, there are clear indications that this book was considered “canonical” for the community, which meant it was recognized as an authoritative book on a par with other biblical books (e.g., Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, Psalms). The canonicity of Daniel at Qumran is indicated, not only by the prolific fragments, but by the manner in which it is referenced in other materials. One fragment employs the quotation, “which was written in the book of Daniel the prophet.” This phrase, similar to Jesus’ reference to “Daniel the prophet” (Matthew 24:15), was a formula typically applied to quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran (see Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:51).
The canonical status of Daniel at Qumran is important to the date and authenticity of the book. If, as critical scholars allege, Daniel reached its final form around 160 B.C., how could it have attained canonical status at Qumran in a mere five or six decades? While we do not know exactly how long it took for a book to reach such authoritative status, it appears that more time is needed for this development (see Bruce, 1988, pp. 27-42). Interestingly, even before the most recent publication of Daniel fragments, R.K. Harrison recognized that the canonical status of Daniel at Qumran militated against its being a composition of the Maccabean era, and served as confirmation of its authenticity (1969, p. 1126-1127).
Although Harrison made this observation in 1969, over three decades before the large cache of Cave 4 documents was made available to the general and scholarly public, no new evidence has refuted it. On the contrary, the newly released texts from Qumran have confirmed this conclusion. The canonical acceptance of Daniel at Qumran indicates the antiquity of the book’s composition—certainly much earlier than the Maccabean period. Hence, the most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts offer confirmation of Daniel’s authenticity; it was written when the Bible says it was written.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/266

I guess the people who wrote the book of daniel deluded themselves into thinking it was prophetic?

I don't think we can tell how authoritative the Qumranites thought Daniel was. The DSS contains all kinds of sectarian literature, some of it not very old when the texts were copied IIRC. spin probably knows more about the subject. It's quite possible that Daniel was only completed a few years before the MSS at Qumran were copied. And of course, we don't know if they considered it prophetic or not.

arnoldo · 01-25-2008, 07:48 PM

In any event I think we are in agreement that the following has never occurred.

Quote:

And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. 45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. Daniel 2:40

Once again, the prophecy itself has proved itself to be false.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-25-2008, 07:59 PM

Message to arnoldo: In case I have missed something, have you quoted a Scripture that you can accurately date where Daniel predicted something that came true?

makerowner · 01-25-2008, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

In any event I think we are in agreement that the following has never occurred.

Quote:

And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. 45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. Daniel 2:40

Once again, the prophecy itself has proved itself to be false.

Yeah...are you using that as an argument for the book of Daniel being prophecy?

arnoldo · 01-25-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Yeah...are you using that as an argument for the book of Daniel being prophecy?

To be honest I agree that the prophecy hasn't been fulfilled, yet.

To be fair here is a source on the origin of your argument which began in the third century.

Quote:

"Following Jerome's refutation of Porphyry, he was more or less dismissed by Christian scholarship as a mere pagan detractor who had allowed a naturalistic bias to warp his judgment. But during the time of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, all supernatural elements in Scripture came under suspicion, and Porphyry's theory received increasing support from J.D. Michaelis (1771), J.G. Eichhorn (1780), L. Berthold (1806), F. Bleek (1822), and many others after them. They all agreed that every accurate prediction in Daniel was written after it had already been fulfilled (a vaticinium ex eventu) and therefore in the period of the Maccabean revolt (168-165 B.C.). Also some of them were inclined to question the unity of the book on the ground of internal evidence and language differences; certain portions of the book--particularly the narratives in chapters 2-6--were thought to come from third-century authors or even earlier. Essentially the same position is maintained even to this day by liberal scholars throughout Christendom. "
The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Gaebelein, Frank E., ed., Vol I. Zondervan, 1979.

arnoldo · 01-25-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: In case I have missed something, have you quoted a Scripture that you can accurately date where Daniel predicted something that came true?

No.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-25-2008, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: In case I have missed something, have you quoted a Scripture that you can accurately date where Daniel predicted something that came true?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

No.

In your post #7, you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Here's another sources on the issue.

"The issue--was it written BEFORE the events or NOT?
Notice carefully that our task is much more simple than would first appear. We do NOT have to demonstrate that the Book of Daniel was written according to conservative theories--in the 6th century BC. ALL we have to do (in this first part) is to demonstrate that it was written BEFORE 167 BC! If the prophecies were uttered even ten years before the event, then they constitute 'prophecy proper'. Strictly speaking, all that is therefore necessary to do is to demonstrate that the material/content in the book of Daniel was in existence by the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. We don't even have to show that the book was in its current form at all-if we can even find references or close/obvious allusions to the images/languages in Daniel, we will have ante-dated the events, and hence, have encountered 'real' prophecy."

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3x.html

What were you trying to prove with that?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-25-2008, 06:37 PM	#131
arnoldo Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Latin America Posts: 4,066	I'm just trying to understand opposing viewpoints. Since the dead sea scrolls contains a copy of the book of daniel, which accurately describes Antiochus, obviously the "original book of daniel had to be written after 164 BC. If only there was an accurate way to date the copy of the book of daniel in the dead sea scrolls!

01-25-2008, 07:59 PM	#136
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to arnoldo: In case I have missed something, have you quoted a Scripture that you can accurately date where Daniel predicted something that came true?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.