Amaleq13

I asked essentially the same question earlier and Jim indicated that he accepted Matthew's nativity over Luke's because he believes the former was written by an actual disciple while the latter was not. He has not, however, explained how he narrowed down the range (ie before Herod's death) given in Matthew to the specific year 4BCE.

Julian

I see. Doesn't a rejection of Luke open the floodgates and allow us to reject Daniel, as well? It would seem to me that between cherry picking which Babylonion decree to use, picking the number of days one wishes to have in a year, moving Jesus' birthday and rejecting conflicting biblical material, the fact that this 'prophecy' falls roughly within the ballpark is hardly surprising...

Of course, this whole thing seems rather silly to me since Daniel is so very clearly about Antiochus and you would have to be having a severe case of wishful thinking to pretend otherwise. Is it just me or does the adherence seem a bit desperate and febrile? *shrug*

Julian

Amaleq13

It is not just you. The correspondence with Antiochus is obvious and requires none of the careful selections or cryptic mathematics required of other interpretations. The difference, IMO, is starting with the text and starting with a belief about the text.

spin

Not a good response, Jim. You are saying that you don't know anything about the history of the period and that this certainly isn't your field. Thanks for the discussion.

Obviously not making particularly good choices as to reference materials.

I don't look at it that way. As you have no historical background in the area, apparently from go to whoa (or woe), your not out here getting your hands dirty with data. You're to busy religioning to stop to read things. I haven't seen a single indication from you of a source that I recognize as scholarly. What you are doing apparently is rehashing other people's interpretations of texts whose origins you don't seem to have fathomed. Before you can build all those interpretative castles, you have to do the foundation work.


spin

Celsus

Good god Jim, your goalposts sure do like their walkabouts.
That wasn't part of your original claims at all, which was that being found at Qumran somehow confered canonicity on Daniel. I take it you retract that claim? (Little by little, they say.) Now I supect your cut-and-paste is the extent of your knowledge on Daniel, so let's see what you have to say in response:
This sort of reasoning demonstrates nothing, because the portion of the book of Daniel that is written in Aramaic, well, doesn't include your prophecy. Textual scholars don't quite agree on the reasons why Aramaic and Hebrew are interspersed in the text to begin with, but they do agree that it represents different stages of transmission. The Hebrew of Daniel is not out of place (though Greek words are) in apocalyptic literature (you know, the sections where the prophetic material lies?), so it states nothing about the dating of Daniel. Beyond this, we know for certain that the additions to Daniel were made in the LXX, demonstrating the ease at which changes could be made to texts in this period (similarly for Esther). One need only look at your Genesis Apocryphon which is not merely Midrash as your source states (presumably never having read it), but also Targum, pseudo-autobiography, and revisionism. This in turn reflects that Daniel had not reached any sort of "canonical" status however defined, at the time of the additions.

On a side note, you know what btdwd means in Palmyrene Aramaic? "Kitchen". So much for the house of David.
Please. I can find the name "Israel" at Ebla (c. 2400 BCE), that demonstrates nothing about Jacob or Israel the nation. First off, you conveniently pick one Hebrew name and two Babylonian names (do we have any idea how common these names were? No, so we have no way of estimating whether it was a coincidence). Secondly, nabu/nego was a Babylonian god, and theophoric names are dime-a-dozen. Unfortunately, my Babylonian isn't good enough to tell you the huge number of words with a bd type root that could be stuck onto nabu to make a name that sounds like Abednego. Similarly, I shouldn't have to tell you that Marduk is another Babylonian god of which any number of Babylonian words could be stuck on if we accept "Mushallim" as similar to Meschach. This sort of argumentation is called special pleading.

Now onto something I do actually know a little about:
Come now, nobody is idiotic enough to conclude that Ezekiel was definitely refering to the Danel at Ugarit. It is merely suggested that his placement alongside other primordial heroes like Noah and Job begs for an answer that doesn't involve special pleading. Why does Ezekiel select these three, while ignoring Moses, Joshua, Abraham, David, Solomon, or any more recent figures? It's as ludicrous as me talking about great warriors like Alexander, Genghis Khan, and Norman Schwarzkopff (while ignoring say, Attila the Hun and Saladin). Why mention their inability to save their children when this is only clearly attested to some of Job's children, especially when Daniel would still have been alive? This is called special pleading.
Given that you have not put forward an ounce of evidence to demonstrate the existence of a "canon" at the time things like the additions to Daniel were written, I don't see why I should accept your "accepted" canon which isn't even "accepted" by the vast majority of Christians today. <insert No True Scotsman fallacy here>
Thank you. Do you reject that your initial assertion about being found at Qumran says nothing about a books canonicity or otherwise? When you do, you can then try to put forward an argument of why you think Daniel is canonical in the 2nd century that doesn't resort to special pleading. How does one check whether the Qumran sect (please do check up on your assertion that the Essenes had anything to do with Qumran) viewed a book as authoritative or not? By referring to Martin Luther's list?
Oh good. I look forward to seeing you do this.

Joel

unknown4

More about Daniel 9:24-27. I'm aware of the claim that the "start date" is in the 7th or 20th year of an "Artaxerxes". I've read that it's not entirely positive that this is Artaxerxes Longimanus, but rather it could have been Artaxexes Mnemon.

I've read variance from 459 to 444 BCE, based on the 7th or 20th year of this Artaxerxes. I've read that Africanus used lunar years, although apparently he made a mistake by using the full 70 weeks as culminating in Jesus, instead of just 69. Are any of these dates fairly certain, or are some just taken to try to get it to fit to a supposed year of Jesus' "ministry"?

Since Isaiah 44-45 speaks of Cyrus rebuilding Jerusalem, the "word" in Daniel 9 could have been the statement by Isaiah that Cyrus would rebuild Jerusalem. Also, the "word" in Daniel 9 could have been the "word" of Jeremiah that Jerusalem would be rebuilt in Jeremiah 30:18. Also, the "word" could have been the "word" that Gabriel himself said went forth when Daniel began his petition.

So, I see various possibilities about this "word" to restore and to build Jerusalem.

Nobody in the NT quotes Daniel 9's 69 weeks as culminating in Jesus to my knowledge, although there is the interesting reference to Jesus telling Peter to forgive 70 times 7. But weren't 7 and 70 "symbolic" type numbers?

And, there's the issue about the last week. If the 70 weeks are 490 years as Christians claim, what does one do about the last week, someone causing the sacrifices to cease, etc? If it was fulfilled around the time of the destruction of the Temple, then that would make a gap of around 35 years, or 5 "weeks of years". Worse yet, if it's to be fulfilled in the future, that would make the gap almost 2000 years or more.

Anyway, just my ramblings I guess.

Jedi Mind Trick

I think that some expositors say that Jesus was referring to Daniel's prophesy when he said:

Luk 19:44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

Not sure about that myself, but how did this interpretation of Daniel start in the first place?

(note: I am not a Christian)

Jim Larmore

Are you saying the dating of ancient documents are written in stone once they are established? That they are never modified?

Special pleadings, right? Your hubris is showing here Spin. So why are you even responding to my posts? Seems to me if you guys were so absolutely sure of your convinctions on these issues that someone like me ( a nobody for sure ) wouldn't even be worth your time to respond to.The truth of the matter is this. When someone like me comes onto this scene of depravity you guys have someone to make your life worthwhile and stimulate your mental energies. Someone to beat up on and provide you with some fun, right? Face it I provide you with a reason to exist on this forum. Preaching to the choir gets very hoohumm and old after a while.

Another aspect of this is that I know way back in the recesses of you brains there is a little voice telling you that this Bible is the real thing . This places many of you in deep doo doo.

So you don't consider the Chronicles of Ezra 7 by S.H. Horn and L.H. Wood scholarly? Not to mention 4 sets of Biblical commentary and about 25 other reference books?

So, I'll repeat the question Spin, why even bother responding? If you already know it all and I'm a nobody nothing with no historical back ground and no real knowledge. Why bother? Go back to your self assured existence and participate only in high falooten dialog with like minded and like philosophical posters that give you postive mental strokes to re-enforce your vast knowlege and convictions. I mean you got it all figured out don't you? :notworthy

Vorkosigan

Believe me, Jim, you don't want to know what's in the deep dark recesses of spin's brain.

Vorkosigan

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.

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.
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 ).

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 .
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.

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.