Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wallener · 04-08-2005, 10:07 AM

Is this an accurate and complete list of Daniel fragments found to date?

Quote:

1:10-17 ................... 1QDan a
1:16-20 ................... 4QDan a
2:2-6 ..................... 1QDan a
2:9-11, 19-49 ............. 4QDan a
3:1-2 ..................... 4QDan a
3:22-30 ................... 1QDan b
4:29-30 ................... 4QDan a
5:5-7, 12-14, 16-19 ....... 4QDan a
5:10-12, 14-16, 19-22 ..... 4QDan b
6:8-22,27-29 .............. 4QDan b
7:1-6, 11(?), 26-28 ....... 4QDan b
7:5-7, 25-28 .............. 4QDan a
8:1-5 ..................... 4QDan a
8:1-8, 13-16 .............. 4QDan b
8:16, 17(?(, 20, 21(?) .... 6QpapDan
10:5-9, 11-16, 21 ......... 4QDan c
10:8-16 ................... 6QpapDan
10:16-20 .................. 4QDan a
11:1-2, 13-17, 25-29 ...... 4QDan c
11:13-16 .................. 4QDan a
11:33-36, 38 .............. 6QpapDan

spin · 04-08-2005, 10:50 AM

The footnotes in the DSS Bible also provide:

Code:

3:8-10(?)
3:12-14(?)
3:23-25(?)    all 4QDan(b)

4:8-12, 15-19     4QDan(d)

5:3(?)            4QDan(d)

7:15-19, 21-23(?) 4QDan(d)

9:12-14, 15-16(?), 17? 4QDan(e)

spin

Jim Larmore · 04-08-2005, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little John

Wouldn't getting to the truth of the matter, wherever it may lead, be of value?

Absolutely, thats what I'm all about. Thats why I'm no longer an agnostic.

Quote:

Is an endeavor to understand the bible only of value if we validate its claims, regardless of the truth of those claims?

But this has the smack of an accusation that validation of the Bible is not the truth or deceitful. What are you saying here? Are you saying all of the Archeological validations of the Bible are not the truth? Are you saying that each and every conservative scholar is wrong in his interpretation of the evidence/history and all of the liberal guys are 100% right?

Quote:

What if the bible is wrong, Jim?
Wouldn't it be of value to point that out?
Does the truth have value to you?

Absolutely.

Quote:

If so, then no discussion is trivial, don’t you think?

Its not if the truth is really whats being sought after. I don't see that here.
I see self appointed experts from academia who denigrate counter evidence , no matter how sound it is, to their position or wave a flag calling it a red herring if you come at it from a slightly different angle or present other evidence. Then on top of that they like to come up with catchy phases like these are "special pleadings" which is in and of itself an invalidation of the opponents dialog or narrative.

You want to talk about the truth lets talk about the truth. I'm all for it.

unknown4 · 04-08-2005, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

Who ever it was he made PROVISIONS/FUNDS available to make it happen. This was the real decree that made the building occurr. The others were distractions that only now serve to confuse and obfuscate.

First, I doubt the meaning of "debar" or whatever it is in Daniel 9 is necessarily "decree". It's just "word" from my knowledge, the same term that's used earlier in Daniel 9 which describes a "word" that was sent when Daniel began his supplication. Secondly, from my knowledge, what were given were letters, for Nehemiah's safe passage and to acquire timber to make beams for the gates of the fortress which is by the temple, for the wall of the city and for his house. I suppose this could be the "start date", but I see no "decree" here (not that I think one is necessarily).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

The only thing that makes since here is a day for a year. Taking a literal stance doens't provide anything of import at all. If you take 483 days from when Daniel received this vision from Gabriel, thats only a little over a year. Heck the first decree from Cyrus hadn't even happened by then.

Perhaps, but this is predicated upon believing that the weeks were weeks of years and must fit events. Daniel 10 refers to him fasting for 3 weeks. I doubt they were weeks of years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

It doesn't say Cyrus would rebuild Jerusalem it says He would say it would be rebuilt ( i.e. Make a decree which he did in 537 B.C. see 2 Chron 36:22-23 or Ezra 1:1-4 ).

Read Isaiah 45:1,13 if you wish, not just Isaiah 44:28. It states Cyrus would rebuild Jerusalem, unless you have an alternate interpretation of "Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus"... (Isaiah 45:1) and Isaiah 45:13 "I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city"...

Regardless, this could have been the "word" of Daniel 9, couldn't it have?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

Its amazing that Cyrus would be prophecied to do this a full century and a half before he was even born . Additonally , in Isa 45:1 it say he would open before him the two leaved gates: and the gates shall not be shut. This is an obvious prophecy of the gates of Babylon being left open during a drunken party in Babylon. This allowed the armies of Cyrus to come into the city and sack it.

Well, this is predicated upon believing that Isaiah actually uttered this prophecy before Cyrus, and isn't something added on by a scribe. I have a book called the Desatir which claims to be from ancient prophets of Persia. Until someone wants to show me a manuscript of it which dates before the events it allegedly describes, I'm unconvinced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

There are a few numbers that are considered special numbers in the Bible. 3,7, 12, 40, 1260 and the multiple of 12x12 in thousands or 144,000. The fact that Daniel 9 is not mentioned in the NT does not make it an invalid prophecy. There are many prophecies that are not mentioned in the NT.

Perhaps it doesn't make it invalid, but I find it very interesting that supposedly one of the best prophecies about Jesus isn't even quoted in the NT. One would think this would have been shoved in every Jews face. This is far more convincing to me, IF TRUE, than any other I've seen, except perhaps Isaiah 53. The fact that the NT doesn't explicitly quote the 69 weeks or 70 weeks, that gives me doubt that the NT authors even saw Daniel 9 as having a start date which could be shown as fact and an ending date which culminated in Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

Legend has it on the day Christ was crucified that the paschal lamb escaped from the high priests hands just as he was preparing to slit its throat. The veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom and the temple was desecrated/desolated. Christs sacrifice put an official end to the sacrificial system. He was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. There was no futher need to sacrifice. Sacrifices did go on for several more years but they were unnecessary as a requirement of God.

My question is this: Reading part of verse 26 and verse 27, "the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end is with a flood, and till the end is war, determined are desolations. And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and in the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one". [Young's Literal Translation]. Some of this seems obscure to me. However, it does seem to be saying that this "Leader" destroys the people, its end is war, determined are desolations. And this "he" strengthens a covenant with many for one week, and in the midst of the week he causes sacrifice and present to cease, etc. When did Jesus make a convenant with "many" for one week? How can Christians make verse 26 and 27 refer to Jesus, and it being part of the last week? The latter part of vs 26 and 27 doesn't sound like Jesus to me.

What, Jim, do you explicitly do with the final week of Daniel 9? I'm wanting to know.

Celsus · 04-08-2005, 11:35 AM

No fair. I bought breath mints this time.

Joel

Wallener · 04-08-2005, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unknown4

Read 1st Isaiah 44:28. It states Cyrus would rebuild Jerusalem, unless you have an alternate interpretation of "Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus...

And just for further amplification: the Hebrew uses the exact same "mashiach" for Cyrus in the above passage as is uses in Daniel. By KJV editorial standards, Cyrus is being explicitly called a "Messiah".

ETA: Spin, thanks for the Qumran additions.

Jedi Mind Trick · 04-08-2005, 12:14 PM

Jim,
I’ll just respond here once on the nature of these questions so as to not derail.

Responding to my question You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

But this has the smack of an accusation that validation of the Bible is not the truth or deceitful. What are you saying here? Are you saying all of the Archeological validations of the Bible are not the truth? Are you saying that each and every conservative scholar is wrong in his interpretation of the evidence/history and all of the liberal guys are 100% right?

I don’t trust it, nope, but I could be wrong.

However, my question was directed at your quip which appeared to be remarking that studying the bible has no value unless you believe it’s claims. That seems to me to be a good way to shut down any value added endeavor at searching for the truth that you claim is your highest goal. I think that’s when triviality results.

As for the archeological validations, well, why not start another thread here and enumerate them for us?

And for the scholars remark, I said no such thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

Its not if the truth is really whats being sought after. I don't see that here.

Why? Because you’ve encountered experts who disagree with you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

I see self appointed experts from academia who denigrate counter evidence , no matter how sound it is, to their position or wave a flag calling it a red herring if you come at it from a slightly different angle or present other evidence.

Well, a self appointed expert should be easy for a real expert, like yourself, to expose. I should think that it wouldn’t require all this personal stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

Then on top of that they like to come up with catchy phases like these are "special pleadings" which is in and of itself an invalidation of the opponents dialog or narrative.

How so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

You want to talk about the truth lets talk about the truth. I'm all for it.

And have you predecided what that truth is?
As for me, I am unconvinced by Christian positive truth claims; I make none of my own. The ball is in your court, as it were.

Sorry Mod’s for the derail.

Jedi Mind Trick · 04-08-2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Perhaps it doesn't make it invalid, but I find it very interesting that supposedly one of the best prophecies about Jesus isn't even quoted in the NT. One would think this would have been shoved in every Jews face. This is far more convincing to me, IF TRUE, than any other I've seen, except perhaps Isaiah 53. The fact that the NT doesn't explicitly quote the 69 weeks or 70 weeks, that gives me doubt that the NT authors even saw Daniel 9 as having a start date which could be shown as fact and an ending date which culminated in Jesus.

They did not explicitly quote 69 weeks or 70 weeks or any sort of calculations but they do seem to link Daniel with a then future cataclysm.

Quote:

Mar 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

So the writers were drawing upon some sort of tradition. But then, if Mark was written during or after 70 that would account for it, I suppose.

How does this verse set with either side on this?

spin · 04-08-2005, 01:13 PM

Babes,

Jimmy already knows that Cyrus's decree and the provision of temple treasure and his sending of Sheshbazzar and co off to Jerusalem to reconstruct the joint are not what Daniel 9:25 is about. He knows this because he can work it out by starting from the ministry of Jesus and working backwards. This doesn't lead to Cyrus, but to Artaxerxes, ergo it must be Artaxerxes. It's quite simple really, you ultimately don't need the book of Daniel at all.

spin

Jim Larmore · 04-08-2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unknown4

First, I doubt the meaning of "debar" or whatever it is in Daniel 9 is necessarily "decree". It's just "word" from my knowledge, the same term that's used earlier in Daniel 9 which describes a "word" that was sent when Daniel began his supplication. Secondly, from my knowledge, what were given were letters, for Nehemiah's safe passage and so he could acquire timber to rebuild the Temple and the "wall" of Jerusalem. I suppose this could be the "start date", but I see no "decree" here (not that I think one is necessarily).

The fact that there is indeed three "decrees" is well established in scholarly circles conservative and liberal. They are the ones I mentioned in an earlier post above. Youngs literal translation is the wording straight from the Hebrew and may be confusing to us now today with our phrasiology or syntax or the way we interpret the communicative speech. The KJV and the NKJV is a pretty reliable translation of the Hebrew for its proper syntax so we can understand what the writer was really saying.

But like I said the decree that made it all really happened was in the 7th year of Xerxes ( Artaxerxes ) and that was in the fall of 457 B.C. so thats our start date.

Quote:

Perhaps, but this is predicated upon believing that the weeks were weeks of years and must fit events. Daniel 10 refers to him fasting for 3 weeks. I doubt they were weeks of years.

I agree and we are expected to use some common sense here as to when we apply prophetic time or literal time. Gabriel is speaking of things to happen in the future so we use prophectic time. The fasting time of Daniel would of course be taken as literal time as no could fast for 21 years. The Lord God gave us intelligent brains to figure this stuff out. We need to use them.

Quote:

Read Isaiah 45:1,13 if you wish, not just Isaiah 44:28. It states Cyrus would rebuild Jerusalem, unless you have an alternate interpretation of "Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus"... (Isaiah 45:1) and Isaiah 45:13 "I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city"...

You have to keep in mind that this was all a gradual process that occurred over a long period of time, Cyrus's part in the building of Jerusalem was to set the captives free and allow the process to begin. Right after Cyrus conquered Babylon he made the decree to let the Hebrews go, this was in 537 B.C. almost a full 100 years before the building got down to earnest. The next decree came in 520 by Darius 1 this is found in Ezra 6:1-12, but this didn't make any provisions. Some Hebrews were going back and forth and building again in Jerusalem so the prophecy is not totally false but the full restoration of the city was still a long way off. It took Artaxerxes to put some bucks behind a decree to make it really happen. This was in 457B.C the 7th year of his reign Ezra 7:1-26. Cyrus probably wasn't even alive when the actual buildiing of the city got under way in earnest.

Quote:

Regardless, this could have been the "word" of Daniel 9, couldn't it have?

I don't know, I think we are speculating here. The decree's are a matter of history, the angel said what he said. Our job is to accurately assess what best explains the prophecy in light of history. That happens to be the 457B.C. start of the time line.

Quote:

Well, this is predicated upon believing that Isaiah actually uttered this prophecy before Cyrus, and isn't something added on by a scribe. I have a book called the Desatir which claims to be from ancient prophets of Persia. Until someone wants to show me a manuscript of it which dates before the events it allegedly describes, I'm unconvinced.

Well do you want to accept the conservative interpretation or the liberal/ skeptic interpretation? If you accept the liberal/skeptic interpretation then you will believe theres no way this could be genuine that a scribe had to add it into the Isaiah text after the occurrence happened. You will believe in a proto or deutero-Isaiah and that the suffering servant of Isa 53 is not even speaking of the messiah or Christ at all.

I believe the book of Isaiah is much older than Daniel. Isaiah was called to be a prophet as a young man toward the close of the reign of Uzziah 790-739 B.C. . He was a prophet during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and he even mentions Manasseh. The book was probably written sometime between 745 and 739 B.C. probably during the last years of Uzziah's reign but before the vision of chapter 6. I don't believe in a proto or duetero-Isaiah like many skeptics do. I believe it takes a priori assumption to do this.

Quote:

Perhaps it doesn't make it invalid, but I find it very interesting that supposedly one of the best prophecies about Jesus isn't even quoted in the NT. One would think this would have been shoved in every Jews face. This is far more convincing to me, IF TRUE, than any other I've seen, except perhaps Isaiah 53. The fact that the NT doesn't explicitly quote the 69 weeks or 70 weeks, that gives me doubt that the NT authors even saw Daniel 9 as having a start date which could be shown as fact and an ending date which culminated in Jesus.

Like I said before theres alot of prophecies and things in the OT that the NT doesn't say anything about. Every scholarly jew of the time knew of the prophecies in the old testament including this one we're discussing. Why do you think they knew that the messiah was to come out of the city of David if this weren't true? The fact is they wanted a king for a messiah , they wanted a deliverer to come and relieve them from the Roman bondage and oppression. They completely overlooked Isa 53 or closed their eyes to it. They were blind as to the truth of what the Bible said concerning the messiah. The same is true today. Many are blinded to the truth because they see what they want to see.

Another thing you have to keep in mind is that the majority of the population back then was illiterate. They didn't have a real education system and they didn't have publishing houses cranking out books all over the place. Only the elite had the proper schooling to read and interpret the scriptures and prophecies. They believed what they wanted to believe, they took a few verses and blew them out of proportion and ignored the rest. Sound familiar?

Quote:

My question is this: Reading part of verse 26 and verse 27, "the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end is with a flood, and till the end is war, determined are desolations. And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and in the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one". [Young's Literal Translation]. Some of this seems obscure to me. However, it does seem to be saying that this "Leader" destroys the people, its end is war, determined are desolations. And this "he" strengthens a covenant with many for one week, and in the midst of the week he causes sacrifice and present to cease, etc. When did Jesus make a convenant with "many" for one week? How can Christians make verse 26 and 27 refer to Jesus, and it being part of the last week? The latter part of vs 26 and 27 doesn't sound like Jesus to me.

Because the first part of verse 26 speaks of the messiah being cut of in the midst of the week. You see this "last week" or the 70th week of the 70 week prophecy you are asking about began in 27 A.D. when Jesus began His ministry. It extended beyond the crucifiction which occurred in the midst of the week, (i.e. Jesus was killed after 3 1/2 years of ministry exactly the "midst of the week") to the autumn of A.D 34 or 490 years after 457 B.C. when the stoning of Stephen occurred. This finished the 70 week prophecy. After this happened the nation of Isreal lost its favored nation status and the apostles turned to the Gentiles with the gospel message.

Now the sanctuary and city were predicted to be destroyed here too in verse 27 when it speaks of the place where sacrifices take place (i.e. the temple) shall make it desolate. When the veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom by an unseen hand at the instant of Christ's death it was heaven's announcement that the sacrifices and oblations had lost their significance, they had met their antitypical fulfillment in the death of the lamb of God, Jesus Christ. This began the desolation of the temple but the final desolation was to come in 70 A.D. by Titus when the whole building came down and not one stone was left on one another just like Jesus said it would be.

04-08-2005, 10:50 AM	#172
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	The footnotes in the DSS Bible also provide: Code: 3:8-10(?) 3:12-14(?) 3:23-25(?) all 4QDan(b) 4:8-12, 15-19 4QDan(d) 5:3(?) 4QDan(d) 7:15-19, 21-23(?) 4QDan(d) 9:12-14, 15-16(?), 17? 4QDan(e) spin

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

04-08-2005, 11:35 AM	#175
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	No fair. I bought breath mints this time. Joel

04-08-2005, 01:13 PM	#179
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Babes, Jimmy already knows that Cyrus's decree and the provision of temple treasure and his sending of Sheshbazzar and co off to Jerusalem to reconstruct the joint are not what Daniel 9:25 is about. He knows this because he can work it out by starting from the ministry of Jesus and working backwards. This doesn't lead to Cyrus, but to Artaxerxes, ergo it must be Artaxerxes. It's quite simple really, you ultimately don't need the book of Daniel at all. spin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.