spin

That's fine. I'm weaseling with a rhetorical question in order for you to form your own.


spin

Sheshonq

There is no such thing as an "original writing of the 2nd BCE era'. That is a term you have made up yourself.

All the DSS are assumed to be copies of earlier works. Some of those earlier works are centuries old (Ezekiel) while others (Daniel) are less than a century old at that time. There are no original manuscripts among the DSS; they are all copies.

WRONG.
Because of other errors in the text, the usage of certain words, and the historical mistakes.

That's what the evidence says. You are whining because the evidence didn't fall your way. There's nothing that anybody can do about that.

spin

Don't feel so bad. You're not getting special treatment: he ignored it when I answered it (way back here) as well.


spin

Diogenes the Cynic

The failed prophecies were in my OP as well.

arnoldo

Amazing! You claim that the Book of Daniel was written after the fact. If that is your postion please explain how Onias III who was cut off in 172/171 BC fits into the prophecy of being the "annointed one" who was cut off.

spin

History usually is.

You persist in calling this stuff prophecy. It's not.

You'll note that the text talks about two anointeds. One is an anointed prince seven weeks after the proclamation. You'll find him in Zech 6:11ff, the same Yeshua in Ezra 3:2. But if one anointed can be a high priest then the second can be as well. Oh gosh, we can't have that. So who's the first anointed if you want to deny the obvious that he's Yeshua ben Yehozedeq?


spin

arnoldo

All thing considered it is only your opinion that the entire book of daniel was written between 167-164 BC. If you have any historical, archaelogical or scholarly journal articles that backs up your claim please provide your sources.

You are neglecting that there are two seperate events of an "abomination" in the temple. One occured in 167 BC however the TEMPLE and the CITY was not destroyed as indicated in the book of Daniel. The TEMPLE and the CITY was destroyed in 70 AD. Note the following text in Daniel 9:25

After Nebby destroyed Jerusalem it was rebuilt.

The Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD

Fast forward to the present when the State of Israel is back in it's homeland. Previously we see that the city and sanctuary where destroyed but here we see that the "sacrifices" will stop once again. It's easy to understand the book of daniel when you let it interpret itself instead of trying to spin it.

arnoldo

Classic cut and paste of mixing different texts to spin your half-truths, first you do that in within the book of daniel now your throwing the book of Zech and Ezra into the mix. :huh: In the bible there are many different people who are annointed including Saul (the first King), King David, King Solomon, the prophets, etc,etc.

spin

And you never stopped to wonder why I "[threw] the book of Zech and Ezra into the mix", did you? No, I didn't think so. It's called evidence to show who the person was described as the anointed prince in Dan 9:25. You'll find the high priest Yeshua was crowned in Zechariah, but you didn't read that because you are clueless as to how evidence works.

Yup. But what've they got to do with the reconstruction of Jerusalem? SFA. Strangely enough though Yeshua does. Hey, that might have been why I mentioned him. He's attributed to have gone to Jerusalem a few generations after the proclamation of ... of ... oh yeah, that's right, after the proclamation of Cyrus, the fellow who Isaiah sees as going to rebuild Jerusalem. So, we have both Cyrus and Yeshua involved in the information in Dan 9:25.

Eyes wide shut. Handy way for you to be when you don't want to understand anything.


spin

spin

When will this sink in: the second half of Daniel was written circa 165 BCE; the first part which features not visions but dreams was written some time earlier, with the statue of Dan 2 indicating a third century context.

You've had scholarly commentaries on Daniel recommended to you. The ones that came to mind were J.J. Collins's, J.J. Collins et al.'s, Robert Anderson's, and D.S. Russell's. If you can't afford to buy them, go to a decent university library.

You are still playing this game, ignoring what the people of the time of 167 BCE said. Here it is again:

1 Maccabees, a text written in the 2nd c. BCE, verse 3:45, says, "Jerusalem was uninhabited like a wilderness; not one of her children went in or out. The sanctuary was trampled down..." In 2:7 Mattathias says, "Why was I born to see this, the ruin of my people, the ruin of the holy city...?" That was the view of people regarding the time of Antiochus IV.


spin