Jack the Bodiless

I have already read the Tektonics article and noted the LACK of actual evidence there that Daniel was written prior to the 2nd century BC (in fact, I did that on the previous "accuracy of Daniel" thread).

Once you strip away the apologetics that attempts to tackle the basis for a 2nd-century date: what actual evidence is there for an earlier date?

So far, all we have is a fable reported in Josephus, that Alexander was aware of the book. Plus Turkel/Holding's bizarre argument that a 2nd-century author "couldn't have known" stuff from a few centuries earlier, which plainly doesn't stand up.

Is there ANY other actual evidence that the Book of Daniel existed prior to the 2nd century BC?

If you have some, please present it here.

post tenebras lux

Am I correct in understanding you as meaning that, if your god happens not to exist, then there is no such thing as sin? Further, that, if there is no sin in this world, then there is no evil? Hence, by your definitions, if your god happens not to exist, then there is no evil in this world?

Jim, have I understood your definitions correctly?

If I have, can we understand your statement in an earlier post that: 'By that I mean it makes sense and I don't know of anyone who could deny that evil exists in our world', to mean that either you think you don't know any real atheists and/or that you think there is no such thing as a real atheist?Care to give an example of a lewd and criminal act of violence that has a justifiable cause? I can't immediately think of one, and so am puzzled by what you meant by that statement.
Care to be so kind as to give references to this archeological evidence? How specific is it? How does it refer to Daniel directly, and does it help show that he was pious?


Thanks in advance for providing those statements as, and when, you can.

There is one little question of mine that you skipped over, that I would really like an answer to...

You asked Sven 'do you believe that demon possession exists or is it a hoax?' and I asked you 'do you believe that blindness is caused by demons?'

Sven has answered that he thinks demonic possessions 'can be explained by psychology (mental disorders etc.). And some are certainly hoaxes,' and I'll second that, but I assume that you do believe in demonic possessions and so wish to know if you think that they are also responsible for causing blindness.

Jim, could you kindly give your (biblically based?) view on the causes of blindness? If you happen to think that there is a difference, in how the god of Moses views blindness compared to how the god of St Paul views it, then can you please point out the differences.

Thanks in advance

Luxie

spin

Nice article faith, but it's not based on any historical indications, merely on biblical traditions. Look at Ezek 14:14 & 14:20 and you get the idea that Daniel was part of Ezekiel's tradition, ie before him, but, as Ezekiel is supposed to be from the time of the early exile, and Daniel of a later time, the end of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the reign of Nabonidus and into the rule of the Persians, Daniel suggests its protagonist is after the time of Ezekiel. But literal approaches to such chronological claims, because the indications are so conflictual, are usually doomed to failure.

That's what the bible says... but the bible isn't history. It's a collection of cultural traditions. (Naive simplification is what makes people see that Fahrenheit 9/11 must be a documentary and become confused.)

Just because you're stuck in a moment and you can't get out of it, ie because you accept that Ezekiel's context must be a historical context (why?), you force yourself into rejecting the historical indications given by the names in the passage. They refer to a particular period well before the time reputed for Ezekiel, before Assyria had conquered northern Syria.

The participants are well enough known and together establish a timeframe for the data. As Ezekiel was written long after that timeframe, you should start to think that the reference wasn't to be taken literally. You might start to see it as allegorical, wanting to edify the Jews who lived in hardship.

This is the dilemma you are forced into because of the conflict between your naive literalism and the apparent obscurity of the text. Would you call a parent who today assuaged the parent who tells of rosey images to a worried child either errant or prophetic (in our modern interpretation of the word)?

Need I have imagined that you believed in Solomon as well?

Gog, Magog, Meshech, Tubal, Beth-Togarmah and Gomer are all long long gone into the oblivion of the past, even before the reputed time of Ezekiel.

Doh! Why confuse the secular state of Israel which was constructed in the 20th century with the ideal construct of Jewish religious tradition?

I think the Jews already know.


spin

Jim Larmore

You forgot the fact that it was translated along with many other books into the LXX which puts it way before the 2nd century B.C. . You have elected to dismiss off hand some good solid evidence presented in the Tektonics website but there are quite a few more that say similar things. Be a little more specific in what you are rejecting sir, just having a broad stroke of rejection is not credible unless you are closed minded and not willing to learn.

Jim Larmore

We're not getting anywhere Mr./Ms Evil Duck, so why not just leave things as they are and not reply to my posts anymore because I certainly don't intend to reply to yours. Why , this is exactly the kind of dialog I left here a few months ago to avoid. So please keep it to yourself or go some place else.

Jack the Bodiless

Are you actually suggesting that we have a copy of the LXX, dated prior to the 2nd century BC, which includes the Book of Daniel?

I think not!

Jack the Bodiless

Perhaps we should review what the actual facts are?

1. No Book of Daniel, and no mention of the Book of Daniel, in ANY source preceding the 2nd century BC (including sources which DO mention OTHER books).

2. Allegorical references which closely match real events in the 2nd century BC.

3. Historical errors pertaining to the period in which apologists claim it was written (Darius the Mede and so forth).

4. "Accurate prophecies" of events up to the 2nd century BC, which are at least sufficient to create a strong suspicion that it was written after those events (establishing a burden of proof on the apologist to demonstrate that it was not: which they have failed to do).

5. A lack of verifiably successful prophecies subsequent to the 2nd century BC: prophecies which we should be able to confirm WITHOUT having to arbitrarily pick convenient dates for the "fulfillment" events.

6. An apparent drop-off of "prophetic accuracy" after the specific time-period that skeptics say it was written in (e.g. the short reign of Antiochus).

I may have missed a few...

...But the ball is very definitely in the apologist's court.

Wallener

I thought this issue had been put to rest a long time ago.

- The "70 weeks" prophetic interpretation didn't exist until later KJV editions went into circulation. And for good reason: it depends on an incorrect translation of the original text. The Hebrew has 62 weeks then something happens, then 7 more weeks and something happens, not the "62 weeks, and then 7 weeks, and then something happens" necessary for the prophesy. Interestingly, this is one of the places where the original 1611 KJV (as far as we can reconstruct it) actually got it right, and subsequent (ie currently used) editions bollocks it up.

- The year length, at least in the original version of the interpretation, required a 360 day year, which does not exist anywhere in Tanakh or elsewhere in Jewish tradition, nor did it exist in Christian tradition until it became necessary for thie "70 weeks" interpretation. Egyptians used it (I believe), but resorting to a strictly pagan calendar for a Jewish prophesy introduces all manner of other difficulties.

- The Hebrew does not even refer to "The Annointed One", it explictly refers to "An Annointed One". More KJV shenanigans: everywhere else the equivalent text is translated as "Annointed", but here the editors chose "Messiah". Oops.

In short, the prophesy doesn't exist without mistranslated text and a non-existent calendar. IMO, this is classic "let the text reflect my beliefs" rather than "derive my beliefs from the text": somewhere, Derrida is sucking on an espresso and laughing his head off.

post tenebras lux

Excellent first post Wallener. Hope you manage to maintain the same high standard with later posts.

Anyways, welcome to IIDB, and I hope you like it here.

Luxie :wave:

Wallener

Thanks for the welcome. There are some impressively knowledgeble individuals here: hopefully I can stay out the food fights and learn something!