spin

Umm, if he is recording "what they said", what do you consider he is recording? What they said or something else?? Ahh, he's only recording the basics of what they said in his own dialect, but then Daniel coming from Jerusalem used Hebrew, didn't he? Why suddenly burst into Aramaic when the text says "the Chaldeans said to the king in Aramaic...", citing the apparent exact words?

Why does the text break out into Aramaic??

I'm impressed with your counselling skills. Thank you for the exhibition.

BY demonstration. Remember your hokey Strongs transliterations for example?

Apologetic sources condemn themselves as in no way possibly objective in their presentation.

I normally cite from orignal texts or their translations.

When the alternatives do not deal with the historical "minutiae", they cannot fulfill the role of explaining the information.

As I said, "One needs to know something about the language to talk about it."

When the marker is based on silence he needs a lot more evidence.

I cited a few immediately afterwards.

Of course, but I see no point, when you are not a linguist.

You still miss the point that someone who knows something about a subject understands other people's abilities.

You've already clearly demonstrated what you know. You have also demonstrated what sources that knowledge leads you to use. You don't personally own even a dictionary which deals with the material.

Oh, thanks for your insight. I hope it's better than your linguistic skills.

The only argument given was one based on silence.

All you have ever argued in this thread is that everything is not impossible. You have no evidence whatsoever for any of your opinions. Doesn't that cause you concern that you are simply being inventive or just following someone else's inventivity? Sorry, I dind't think so.

I've cited epigraphic sources. Your source has invented false procedures in genealogy. I've shown that Darius the Mede is not historical. You have claimed erroneous stuff such as "Darius" is a title and that he wasn't really a king, but like Belshazzar was called a king, while he wasn't. You are fabricating a past that means nothing.

Darius has been shown to mean something that you falsely claimed meant something else. As "Darius" is clearly a name, the only trajectory we have seen in history for a name to become a title is after the user of the name has started a historical precedent to follow, through the use of the name, such as Caesar or Robin Hood or Quisling. Darius son of Hystapses is the first Darius to make the name famous. Any attempts to make Darius a title before then has no sense.

They have as much ancient support as each other: none. That was the point. You are trying to sell something that you have not a drop of evidence for. Your tendentiousness is plain to anyone who reads this thread.

All you need is evidence otherwise it is yet more empty conjecture. Don't you realise that anyone can make empty conjectures at any time, but it means nothing whatsoever. Evidence is what counts. If you expect anyone to show that the conjecture is wrong, you are fooling yourself about scholarly activities.

Without evidence you are saying zippo.

BDB.

Sorry, it was a typo. BDB. But of course you knew that.

BDB uses ancient sources. Can you give any ancient sources for any of your claims?

As the epigraphy indicates he wasn't called king. As the fact that he didn't perform the New Year festivities indicates that he didn't act as king.

So, where is your evidence from the sixth century to support your position?

Yup: "(son of the) king", in fact.

The two pieces of evidence as to what he was called along with the fact that he did not perform the New Year festivities are conclusive and that one had to wait until Nabonidus returned before they were again celebrated. Like BUllwinkle you have nothing at all up your sleave and take recourse in subterfuge to not admit the obvious.

We always go on evidence. There are hundreds of genealogical indications in Babylon and Assyria. Find one that specifically uses terms such as "son" and "father" which actually use a female in that line. Otherwise the evidence is crushing.

That for example Semiramis who he calls Babylonian was actually Assyrian and that the only candidate in this situation for Nitocris is an Assyrian queen named Naqia who is about five generations after Semiramis as according to Herodotus. That there were no kings called Labynetus. That Herodotus doesn't know any Babylonian history down to not knowing about Nebuchadrezzar.

He doesn't mention them. They are merely being insinuated into the text.

See above.

When you are not doing your job, you should be told. You are not doing anything regarding history. You are simply making an unsupported apology.

It is the way the word is used in Hebrew.

In no sense. We don't actually have a name, but a title, ie "king", just as you use "lord" for your god(s).

You are guessing, for you have no substantiated contemporary evidence.

No, I am not. I don't waste time with unfounded conjecture, which only exists specifically to aid apologetics.

That still leaves the possibility that you consider your response meaningful in the context.

The text doesn't name him, but gives his position. That position is indicative of the writer's approach to the person, ie he was son of the king.

The epigraphy plainly gives him his status.

It says what his title was. Would you like to give an example from antiquity of a person who is both called "son of the king" and "king" officially at the same time?

You wanted to know what "tangible" was. I told you and gave you indications. What is this request for another definition??

You don't have any problems with Egyptian epigraphy, do you? What about Mesopotamian inscriptions? How about the tablets from Ugarit? What about those from Hattushilash? The Dead Sea Scrolls? The Nag Hamadi texts? The ancient world is teeming with examples of documents that can be shown to come from the period.

The next best thing is attestations for a text in the context, then a text which clearly shows historical knowledge which comes from the period.

This is merely a quibble on terminology. Here is another phrase that you might find more to your palate: "ability to explain all the information", ie it needs to cover all the data otherwise it lacks the ability. I gave you some of the methodology immediately afterwards, so let's go there...

We are assuming what I called "explanatory power", a term which you quibbled about, but which I have now reworded for your convenience. You are right that it doesn't imply that it is correct, but it does imply that there is no reason to consider anything more complicated.

Demonstrate this claim.

I use what you have claimed about it.

I think you are confusing tradition and apologetic for scholarship. Neither cut it. Scholarship requires evidence. The other two don't. That's why you have no evidence. You are not doing scholarship.

You are confusing representation with knowledge.

Have so. Have not. Have so too. Oh, please, bfniii, step out of the school yard. This is what I said:

History is based on evidence. You have none. Come back when you have some.

This is rather ironic.

Misunderstanding. Here are your words:

As I said, I never said this. The critical position as you call it says that Antiochus IV's prevention of the tamid was in 167 BCE, ie at the end of the first half week of the last week. This is when the abomination of desolation was set up.

You need to read the position you are trying to critique.

You need to read the position you are trying to critique.

I said that the tamid was stopped by Antiochus in 167, ie at the end of the first half of the last week, 9:27a.

I was giving the latest possible date, ie when Cyrus died, so he couldn't make the declaration after he died.

I am being accomodating to the worst scenario to give you more space. This is a normal procedure.

So you aren't going to make a case.

No, you misunderstand again. In modern analysis one needs to establish the text type you are dealing with. This is a modern concept, as textual analysis has become more exacting in more recent times. The apologetic line isn't aware of its task in a more analytical world, hence it merely insinuates that the text is historical.

Direct knowledge which terminates at a specific time and goes wrong is taken to be conclusive.

Not enough to establish direct knowledge.

All you need do is show that it is history.

Simple: they assume something that they have no evidence to do, ie that Daniel is history.

I have no need to. See above.

I don't claim that Daniel is historical. The evidence we have shows that it isn't, errors such as the fictitious "Darius the Mede" being king of the Persian realm, when Cyrus was king.

Evidence.

Scholarship is based on evidence. You go with the evidence, not the conjecture.

It is sufficient that it covers the data, when you have no alternative which covers the data.

When Peter Schaeffer wrote his play Amadeus, he was mixing history with human analysis. This doesn't in any way show that Schaeffer was writing at the time of Mozart. Comments in Daniel don't indicate that it was written in the sixth c. BCE, but there are indications that it was written in the second c. BCE.

Where did you get the distinctive Strong's transliterations and the Strong's erroneous definition of the name "Darius"??? Honesty woulod be appreciated for once.

Red herring.

In this case you are correct about the first and wrong about the second.

The analysis is based on

1. the historical indications in Daniel don't reflect knowledge of the 6th c. BCE;
2. the language of the Aramaic is not from the 6th c. BCE;
3. the text focuses on the second century with great accuracy until it goes wrong; and
4. this going wrong sets a terminus ad quem.

In no sense. You have not dealt with evidence, not provided any, not a single datum that substantiates any claim you've made about Daniel which is contrary to the status quo scholarly analysis.

My accusation? ie that Onias was the anointed one, the prince of the covenant, the prince of the host? I am aware that the non-scholarly views don't accept this. But do you accept that all of these three figures refer to the same person??

I at least used evidence. You seem not to be concerned with that.

I understand.

You are trying to use them all.


Actually you'll have to point out the unsupported assumptions.

You have attempted extreme unsupported claims to justify Daniel's text as being historically accurate, as in your brushing aside of evidence for the real position of Belshazzar, the ignoring of the Darius the Mede figure who is portayed as the king of the Persian realm, making the claim that Belshazzar could be inventively made a son of Nebuchadnezzar. All this shows your desire to defend Daniel as historically accurate. The defence is extreme.

You weren't relating to what you cited.

I never the claimed that the writer was trying to write history.

The writer didn't know the period well at all. That is an indication of its writing well after the fact.

You were claiming the "almost midrashic nature of the genre", "genre" which indicates the work as a whole, not just one development of a reference to Jeremiah. This comment was however only a parenthesis.

I do appreciate that you are arguing from a position with a total lack of evidence for it, but I don't think that you've added any single datum to the substantive content of this discussion, so I find it is a rather one-sided thread. I would like to have a little data to work with. That way I can learn something about the subject. I know that there is no necessity of you supplying a scrap of data, but don't you get embarrassed being so emptyhanded? Life is tough for the apologist. But you'll get your reward for coming into the infidel den and apologizing.


spin

bfniii

this is not the first time that one source records something fantastic that other sources do not. that doesn't make the lone source inaccurate. it just means that to claim it's untrue is to argue from silence. lack of evidence is not a form of evidence.

martini

my emphasis. i beg your pardon for the interruption, but this last response seems rather evasive. he asked "what's more likely", to which you failed to respond. so i am curious: do you really think that it is more likely not one other contemporary independent source would record any of these events, or that they did not happen?

using your logic, any event in ancient history must be treated seriously if even found in but one source. this does not seem very reasonable to me. while it is one thing, i think, to claim that a Joe Shmoe like myself could have walked on water during a fishing trip, it is quite another to pretend that kingdoms changed hands or miraculous events such as the furnace incident in Daniel took place sans corroborative evidence. i am sure that is not your position, so what criteria exactly do you use to justify having only a single source for historical event?

martini

bfniii? Etes-vous lÃ*-bas ?

bfniii

citing the "exact words" does not mean "in their language".

no reason is specified.

so i didn't admit that. just making sure that's clear.

no they don't. only someone who is biased and doesn't want to address their points would say something like that. a scholarly approach wouldn't dismiss their assertions as subjective a priori.

which doesn't preclude you from bias nor does it make you correct.

you have no room to make such a comment because you haven't shown an ability to accurate represent the alternatives, much less their parsimony. when you do show such, we might be able to make some progress.

so you do, you do rely on someone else's translation. that's all you had to say.

since you don't know what i know, why don't you stop worrying about that and just present your analysis.

that's not what the marker is based on. it's verb position as you have already pointed out.

he does? according to whom?

boy that sure sounds like an excuse. what's curious is that you've never been shy about a challenge before. why the grandstanding now? besides, you don't know what i am and am not.

only up to this point in this thread. you don't know what or who i have access to.

why do you bother wasting everyone's time with these ridiculous comments? you don't know what i have and don't have.

i was hoping you would have some response but i guess you don't.

strawman. my point was the "evidence" you present is merely circumstantial.

you haven't shown that you can even accurately reproduce what my opinions are, much less the major views on the subject. you have blithely claimed all alternatives as incorrect without even bothering to show why or how (listing the advantages of the critical view does not qualify as outlining other views). so far, i have merely tried to get the alternative views on the table. apparently, you are more interested in insulting other posters as opposed to open dialogue.

like you don't do the same with your critical form of daniel. my concern now is how long to continue to respond to a person who is, at this time, not capable of an honest, productive discussion regarding daniel.

which has in no way added anything new to the veracity of the critical position.

no it has not. you are trying to misrepresent what the word is implying. if you don't like that, fine. we'll just agree to disagree and drop it.

you have done no such thing. there are several theories regarding this person, including that he may be lost to us, and you have debunked exactly zero. if you had, then we need to notify the world that you have solved this pesky, centuries old quandry so that every scholar who is working on the issue can stop wasting time with something you have already solved. why are you still here? get out there and notify the media!

i have merely brought to this discussion one of the theories out there that has been around for quite some time. i am sorry you think i am the one making it up.

erroneous why?

you fail to include the theory i posited that the word does not always imply the king per se, but highest ruler.

spoken with true bias. i am still holding out hope that you will actually begin to discuss the other major views instead of just blithely claiming the critical one is superior.

and your proof of this is?

i have reminded you that the word-title darius could have come from the fact that there are iterations of the word that imply it might not be limited to a proper name.

is it as plain to anyone as your failure to honestly discuss ALL of the major views?

your question-begging approach fails to account for the weaknesses of the critical view, most notably that there is absolutely no proof that daniel was specifically referring to certain historical events as opposed to others (including some that may not have yet happened).

given that circumstantial evidence is less than conclusive, the same could be said of your version of the critical argument.

BDB does not pretend to cover each and every theory, including some of the more common ones, for any one issue. therefore, your use of the word "falsified" is spurious.

none of the people theorized to be darius are invented. they are all derived from ancient sources.

the epigraphy does not guarantee that he wasn't called anything else nor does it address that the word used in daniel may itself not specifically refer to a king.

only in that capacity. that certainly doesn't preclude others.

is there an ancient source that shows that belshazzar was NOT co-ruler?

having to wait until he returned to perform the ceremonies does not prove belshazzar wasn't called king nor does it address that the word does not always imply king specifically.

any alleged historical facts are not in question. your biased interpretation of them is.

if you continue to misinterpret the word, i agree.

and how is this information known?

not that he is required to in order to be accurate about nabonidus. what history do you require him to know?

i was hoping you would answer the question.

maybe you aren't aware that there are christian scholars who advocate the critical position of daniel, as well as the traditional and dispensational. i have already mentioned andre lacocque for one. therefore, it's not apology. it's an opinion as to how daniel should be interpreted.

i just gave examples of how the word was used by hebrews.

ok. i provided specific examples of the flexibility of the term. i guess we agree to disagree.

sigh. another dismissal. is that the best response you can provide to the examples i cited?

another dismissal.

another dismissal.

which doesn't address the point i raised.

another example is irrelevant to this particular situation, especially given the fact that the title may not have specifically referred to king.

i didn't ask you about the scrolls/inscriptions/texts themselves, but the information on the scrolls. how can the information be verified to be true?

what do you mean by attestations? independent sources?

yeah you lambasted me earlier for trying that one but here you say it's ok.

and when there are multiple explanations that all have advantages and disadvantages?

again, simple to you may not be simple to someone else.

1. i have already demonstrated some of the strengths of the traditional and dispensational views
2. i have already demonstrated some weaknesses of the critical position
3. all you have attempted to do is address the strengths of the critical position and then blithely dismiss any other views

at least i claim something about the scholarship. you just try to bully other people into blindly accepting one view.

1. you are assuming that proponents of views that you don't support are unaware of opposing views, the weaknesses of their position and any information that might undermine their position.
2. you too merely apologize, just for a non-christian worldview.

according to your subjective opinion

does this also apply to your suppositions about daniel?

everytime you type these kinds of statements, your bias becomes more and more apparent. if the critical position was so superior, everyone would have no choice but to accept it. since that has not happened, it must not be so vastly superior. what's disappointing is that you are unable to comprehend this which leads one to believe you aren't "doing scholarship". in order to do so, you need to be able to show why your view is superior which presupposes that you command accurate and thorough knowledge of the opposing views.

no, when i look back over this thread, you have indeed not represented even a hint of views other than the critical view. yes, you have some knowledge. but it does you no good when you can't appropriately and objectively apply it.

ok. please quote where you have shown an outline of the traditional and dispensational views with a comparison/contrast of the strengths and weaknesses against the critical view. forget that, just show where you have attempted to represent a view other than the critical view. how about some names of scholars who advocate each view? until you can do so, why should anyone accept than you are anything other than a dilettante when it comes to daniel?

this response underscores the increasing degradation of your arguments. could you please address the comment i made in the post?

no answer to the question. increasingly recurrent.

your response doesn't seem to address the point i was making. i challenged the notion that onias was who daniel was referring to as anointed. you said that what daniel mentions after onias supports that onias indeed fits the bill. i pointed out that one of the problems with that view is that the stoppage of sacrifice mentioned by daniel does not match the events you referred to.

good advice. i had already done that prior to our conversation. it has problems that i have tried to point out to you but you seem uninterested in dealing with them.

ok. so why don't you provide the timeline of your hybrid version of the critical position (start, end, important dates).

what's the matter? are you not able to?

this is what you don't seem to understand; i don't have to make the case. the three views are what they are. each has strengths and weaknesses.

according to you, what "text type" are we dealing with?

this part of your response doesn't make sense because i have stated that there are supporters in each of the camps. none of them are apologetic. they're just providing an interpretation of daniel's intent.

each of the 3 views insinuate the daniel is historical. they just differ on which events daniel is referring to and when it was written.

taken to be conclusive maybe by you, but certainly not by everyone. as i have said, people who do not favor the critical view take this to mean daniel wasn't referring to to the events you seem to think he was.

you still haven't defined "direct knowledge".

each of the three views does that. your opinion is that the critical is the strongest position but you seem adverse to discussing it's weaknesses.

"they" have plenty of reasons to think their position is stronger. believe it or not, they are even aware of the latest developments in the critical position and still maintain that the critical position is weaker.

spin, even the critical position holds that daniel is history.

they assume something how? are you not able to show ANY support for your claim that their assumptions are false?

this is a minor point, but yes you do. you claim that daniel, written in the 2nd century bc, is chronicling events during that time.

darius isn't an error. he just isn't mentioned by any other sources. we have already covered his status.

and what prevents someone else, who has a broader knowledge of the major views, from claiming the same thing thus negating your claim?

your position is full of conjecture. i guess that means you aren't scholarly.

so you don't have support for your case. that's all you had to say.

so you can't provide that outline. that's all you had to say.

no, coherent is subjective. and relative.

this has been addressed

there are indications that it is.

we don't know that daniel was inaccurate about the 6th century bc. it's just that other sources don't mention much of what he refers to but that certainly doesn't make him inaccurate.

which indicates he wasn't referring to events in that time

non sequitur.

this is just spineless posturing. i can and have QUOTED the very things i claimed in the previous post. it seems like you are trying to deflect from your failure to thoroughly analyze a broader spectrum of views on daniel.

i accept that the traditional and dispensational views on daniel do not see onias as the anointed one. there are specific reasons why.

so you still don't have knowledge of the other views. that's all you had to say.

excellent. hopefully you can start to clear your position up.

i am not using anything. i am trying to get you to begin to take the blinders off.

in progress. join the discussion.

i took that point head on and presented my case. the "evidence" you provided is less than compelling.

ignore? please read back through the thread so i don't have to cut and paste my responses.

strawman.

this is hypocritical in that you are trying to use daniel's "accurate history" of the 2nd century bc as reason to believe it was written during that time. wouldn't that constitute "extreme defense"?

yes, it is rather difficult getting you to discuss the broader implications of the issue

indeed

not embarrassment but disappointment that i have been unable to get you to look at the bigger picture.

i think we are past the point of diminishing returns. i am spending an alarming amount of time addressing your posturing, grandstanding and question-begging arguments as opposed to talking about specifics of daniel. if you would like to continue the discussion, indicate so by providing a thorough analysis of each of the major views including a comparison/contrast of their advantages and disadvantages. it would be a welcome olive branch to show you have actually put in some time studying of daniel. btw, i certainly wouldn't ask you to do something that i myself am not prepared to do.

spin

bfniii

Your last post unfortunately was not worth dealing with and of course you think this of my previous post. (It doesn't help that you don't respond for long periods and expect a conversation to be taken up cold.)

You don't seem to have any data on this issue. You have merely taken the longest shot excuse on every occasion, then stonewalled. Would you normally accept such an extreme approach to not dealing with the subject?

You claim that,

• the references "son" and "father" are valid even when passed matrilinearly, no evidence supporting, lots against.
• darius the mede wasn't a person called Darius at all, but someone else, despite the fact that you have no reason to believe this.
• you have attempted to claim without any historical reason to do so that Belshazzar was called "king" despite the fact that the epigraphic record contradicts you and you provide no ulterior evidence to suggest such a contrary situation was possible.
• you have claimed that there are other explanatory ways of dealing with the Daniel data yet you have refused to provide a coherent defence of any of them.
• you are accusing me of being blinkered when I am the only one who has provided data in this discussion. (Sorry, have I overlooked any data directly relevant to the periods being discussed? If so, what?)
• you have shown no effort to consider the force of the correlations between historical events of the 3rd and 2nd c. BCE and the text of Dan 11. (Can you provide a set of correlations anywhere near as accurate??)

In short, you don't seem to have dealt with Daniel whatsoever. I feel you are not being honest with yourself in your approach which shows no knowledge of the scholarly approach nor any interest.

If you don't think this discussion is worthwhile, let me say for the input or lack thereof you've furnished, I have to agree with you. I don't give two hoots about Daniel's "contradictions" per se. They are not for me unless one is forced to consider the text as writtenin the 6th c. BCE which is not a serious possibility. I would like to have had a little light shed on it, but you gave nothing, nothing at all.


spin

cass256

Why not? It makes for a better story. Do you think what you are reading is the original, written by Daniel? Hasn't it been copied and possibly retranslated?. The translator using a version of Aramaic more familiar to those who would read it at that time?

Again, the copyist implants a name that is more familiar to his understanding of history, or at least the understanding of history at the time. He is covering what he thinks is Daniel's mistake. One of the many Darius characters was his better guess, and thought to be so by those around him. Why else a mistaken name? As you say it would make no sense.


How do you know this is the Abomination Daniel fortold? just becasue it happened and fits your idea of what YHWH would consider an abomination causing desolation?
.
Are you also saying that daniel was written after the restoration of Jerusalem? After Aniochus did his thing in the temple, but before the rest of the events did not pan out? He knew the temple was violated, but died before the temple sacrifices continued?

You mean that your spin has to be the one Daniel meant? What proof do you have that he ws referring to onias? what was the covenant? and it says the people of the Prince, Onias would destroy the city. So that would not leave room for Antiocus. The prince of the covenant causes the sacrifices to cease. That prince you say is Onias. and daniel expected Onias' people to destroy the city?

If Daniel did not use the names of people who were familiar to later people of judah, they never would have kept his book in the Tanak. Therefor, the translators would have had to change the stories to fit their beliefs or throw it out..

There is nothing you have said that can't be explained by what was typical in the handing down of the books in the bible. Translation, transliteration, and heavy editing.



I wish my library had not disappeared. I would have been able to get into the timetable in daniel 9. I am left with the bare minimum.
out of curiosity, is your understanding of Hebrew as great as that of Aramaic?
Can you give me a literal translation of the wording in the second half of Daniel 9:27? right after the sacrifices cease.
Not for argument. I have a private theory and it hinges on the wording that is translated differently in every Bible I read.

thanks

spin

cass256, if you want to make witty responses, read the context.
Thanks for your hypotheses.

Thanks for your hypothesis.

Fits the contextualisation.

Yup.

Don't confuse terminology. Different visions use different terminology.

OK.

I never claimed any differently. However, I'd guess that we have different starting positions. I've outlined mine.

Words between \ / are single verbs.


spin

cass256

Wasn't really trying to be witty. Read the whole thread in one sitting and my mind had turned to mush.
Was just trying to see if I missed a point, or if you had any more to say on the questions I asked, or suggestions I proposed. I didn't mean that I believed my hypotheticals, necessarily.. or was attacking your position, if it came off that way.

I was making sure I didn't miss anything. I have a personal interest in daniel, and I think I said on another board I was unfortunate enough to have lost every book I owned, including Pritchard. I had started rebuilding what I had, and had to move again, losing my whole library.

I'm obviously not a scholar, barely made it through Freshman English in College, so not a linguist either.
This became a hobby, I was never schooled in anything related to language, or religion, or much History where I grew up..
After I lost my books for the second time I gave it up completely. Only recently to become interested enough again to start all over. It is an expensive hobby if you like having your own copies of References. So I am starting slow.

at any rate, I promise I will never pull a five porches on you again. My sense of humor gets the best of me some times, when things get too heated or dry.

As far as I am concerned I have nothing to dispute the late dating of the book. I will have to read up on the Onias, and see how each character fits. (Onias/A.IV)

I tend to look at the Bible as "what if"...

It is some % fiction and fabrication w/ editing, some % factual history, a small but interesting % possible prophecy.
Even self fulling prophecy is interesting.

So, say A. the IV was an abomination and the rest of the prophecy fell through. I'm wasting my time reading the book at all, after that.. So I have to tease myself to stay interested.

The Christian timeline has to be worked on, but say the human prophet's frequenty was not fully tuned and so he was a little off. The problem I find with the Christians' picture of Jesus fulfilling prophecy is that he was a passover lamb. That doesn't fulfill 9:24
There was never a scapegoat vs spotless goat on a day of Atonement fulfillment. You cannot put all the sins on a passover lamb. I may have it wrong, but the sin sacrifice did not get killed with the sins on it, the sins went on the scapegoat which lived on.

So I look at Daniel 9 and try to fit characters into the plot. The people who destroyed the city, andTemple, etc. were the Romans. They were the people of a prince (possibly Jesus by lineage) who was abductuded by Rome. (Killed then made a god, by Rome, through Paul, the Roman) They become the people of "Jesus" the Prince. Prior to that Temple destruction, an Abomination has to take place at the temple. One that would permanently remove the sin sacrifice, because it is fulfills. 9:24 My question is if there is room for putting the "abomination" as an act on a "pinnacle" of the Temple? I don't think I have to have the word temple in 9:27. I think if the abomination/sacrifice fits, " pinnacle" alone would make it obvious. ( Everyone expects it to be the temple). If that word can be substituted for "wing", I believe the Pinnacle incident may have been mentioned by Josephus. I just think his hearsay may not have all the details. I need the act to have happened on the day of Atonement. That, I don't think I can get proof of. I haven't seen it yet, at least... I don't have my books, so i'd have to find an online source for josephus.. and look for others who may give clues.

can I translate Daniel 9:27 to where On the pinnacle, an abomination (an act) he makes desolating,
Let me see


On the pinnacle,he makes a desolating abomination (an act) to the end (or for the completion), that which is decided pours out on the desolator.
ie. The act is a sacrifice of sorts. (in the way Christians relate jesus) with the result; that everything decided (being all the transgessions of 9:24 ) is poured out on the perpetrator... (scapegoat) who stays alive while the sacrificed one is righteous (spotless), but his blood is spilled at/ or in the Temple, (which is where the sin sacrifice should have happened... Not at golgotha. )

I know you don't come from any position that is remotely believing this would be more than fiction, but could the words fit?

I'm just playing with a Puzzle here. Daniel could have very well been aware of Onias and Antiocus IV and meant them, himself.. That does not take away from the idea that this could still be a prophecy for a future fulfillment (by 70 AD). That is the way the Bible is "supposed" to work, anyway.

bfniii

hmmm...

but i did respond.

insane. i have provided info on all three major views of daniel.

i have done no such thing. i have tried to initially present alternatives to you which you summarily reject because of your apparent dogma. i will be glad to present my personal reflections when you are ready to weigh each of the views equally.

because you won't respond.

that's why i pointed out our predicament. this thread is over 30 posts and you continue to find inventive ways to avoid discussing views other than the critical view.

• i make no such claim. you are misinterpreting the intent of the word.
  
  
  Quote:

  Originally Posted by spin darius the mede wasn't a person called Darius at all, but someone else,

  that is one theory
  
  
  Quote:

  Originally Posted by spin despite the fact that you have no reason to believe this.

  i provided such reasons. i can cut and paste them if you like.
  
  
  Quote:

  Originally Posted by spin you have attempted to claim without any historical reason to do so that Belshazzar was called "king" despite the fact that the epigraphic record contradicts you

  you misrepresent the source you cite.
  
  
  Quote:

  Originally Posted by spin and you provide no ulterior evidence to suggest such a contrary situation was possible.

  i disagree.
  
  
  Quote:

  Originally Posted by spin you have claimed that there are other explanatory ways of dealing with the Daniel data yet you have refused to provide a coherent defence of any of them.

  i can cut and paste the posts i made regarding these other views if you like.
  
  
  Quote:

  Originally Posted by spin you are accusing me of being blinkered when I am the only one who has provided data in this discussion. (Sorry, have I overlooked any data directly relevant to the periods being discussed? If so, what?)

  please point out the post you made where you outlined the three major views with comparison/contrast of strengths and weaknesses. perhaps i missed it. you won't even provide the simple timeline i asked for.
  
  
  Quote:

  Originally Posted by spin you have shown no effort to consider the force of the correlations between historical events of the 3rd and 2nd c. BCE and the text of Dan 11.

  i most certainly have. i can cut and paste them if you like. i just don't think it can be conclusively shown that those events are the only ones daniel was referring to.
  
  
  Quote:

  Originally Posted by spin (Can you provide a set of correlations anywhere near as accurate??)

so i should do your homework for you? how about you analyze the alternatives and state why they lack parsimony?

curious coming from someone who goes on and on without considering the alternatives.

i am ready to discuss the three major views when you show a willingness to overcome your blind devotion to the critical view.

unless you begin to take a more scholarly tack, i will move on but i couldn't let this gross and blatant misrepresentation go unchecked.