arnoldo

So the book was written around 164 BC, rapidly accepted as canon, and then the reference of Daniel was included in 1 Maccabees 2:59 which was written around 100 BCE. I guess they forgot to edit out the errors about Antiochus.

Amaleq13

No, we've seen that inclusion in the Dead Sea Scrolls does not necessarily indicate "accepted as canon". Stop making this false claim.

arnoldo

Is it a false claim that it was translated into greek in the 2 century BC?

Amaleq13

Is there evidence supporting the claim?

I thought the DSS copies were in Aramaic and Hebrew.

makerowner

arnoldo, deal with chapter 11. Stop trying to derail the thread. spin's post here goes in to detail about the historical events behind each verse. Please indicate for each verse whether you agree or disagree with spin's explanation, and if you disagree, explain why and provide sources. Thank you.

Sheshonq

1. I note that you cannot admit your mistake. You first claimed that nobody believed Daniel was written in a three year span. I showed you otherwise, yet you lack the intellectual or moral integrity to admit that you were wrong and only guessing in the first place. What a fine, upstanding example of a Christian you are.

2. Who said it was canon at 164 BCE?

After 60 years, it was an established work with multiple copies floating around Jewish communities in the Greek-speaking world, thanks to the LXX publication. Editing it at that point would have been pretty conspicuous.

arnoldo

You have basically proven Daniel's prophecy to be accurate. However you are mistaken into thinking there is only "one little horn" in the book of daniel. There are two. One is clearly from the Greek Empire (a goat with a great horn that is broken, four horns rise up, and a little horns rises up (antiochus IV). In another prophecy Daniel states he saw a fourth beast (the Roman Empire) which had ten horns and then a little horn rose up. It would have been easier to understand if Daniel simply had mentioned names such as Alexander the Great and Antiochus but I'm sure you understand this would upset the course of history. In any event you stopped the analysis of Daniel 11 at verse 40. Why?

Sheshonq

Bullshit. spin's detailed analysis did exactly the opposite.

You are unable to address or refute it, so you wave your hands rapidly and say "it supports my claim."

Dishonesty must be a core requirement for bible literalists.

arnoldo

Wrong, remember that Antiochus IV (died 163 B.C) was referred to as "the king of the north" Daniel 11:36 refers to "the king" which is Herod the Great.

spin

A man who has sold his soul.

This is what I said in post #46 of this thread:

The four beasts of chapter 7, the lion (Babylon), the bear (Media), the panther (Persians), the unnamed beast -- the elephant to us -- (Greece), is the same progression in the statue of Dan 2, which has the Greek empire dividing into two legs, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. The feet made of iron and clay indicate the varying power that the two empires were able to wield.

The usual christian game is to pretend that the Medes and the Persians were really one empire, despite the fact that the Persians conquered the Medes. The Jews of course saw Media as separate from the Persians, Isaiah 13:17-19 prophecying that the Medes would destroy Babylon.

But let's look at what Darius I says about himself at the beginning of the Behistun inscription:

I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King in Persia, King of countries, son of Hystaspes, grandson of Arsames, an Achaemenian.

Yes, no mention of Media here, just Persia. But wait, let's look further. Another inscription by Darius from Persepolis (DPd):

(1-5.) I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of many countries, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian.
(5-18.) Darius the King says: By the favor of Ahuramazda these are the countries which I got into my possession along with this Persian folk, which felt fear of me (and) bore me tribute: Elam, Media, Babylonia, Arabia, Assyria, Egypt, Armenia, Cappadocia, Sardis, Ionians who are of the mainland and (those) who are by the sea, and countries which are across the sea; Sagartia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Bactria, Sogdiana, Chorasmia, Sattagydia, Arachosia, Sind, Gandara, Seythians, Maka.
(18-24.) Darius the King says: If you shall think thus, "May I not feel fear of (any) other," protect this Persian people; if the Persian people shall be protected, thereafter for the longest while happiness unbroken -- this will by Ahura come down upon this royal house.

Pride of place to the Persians.

Naturally the Medes are an important part of the Persian empire. The mother of Cyrus II was a Mede. Media is close to the top of the list of tributary countries in the above inscription. The Persians had armies from Media.

But Darius invokes Ahura Mazda to protect the Persians, his people.

Although in the minds of certain christian fanatics there was a "Medo/Persian" empire, the Persians did not agree.

We are left with the four beast in Daniel 7 as:

1. Lion = Babylon
2. Bear = Media
3. Panther = Persia
4. Elephant = Greek (Seleucid) kingdom

The fourth, unnamed, beast is exceedingly strong, has great teeth (tusks) and tramples all before it. This is an image of an elephant seen by those who had never seen the beast before and only now in the last few years been confronted with it in battle, for the Seleucids used the elephant against the Jews (1 Macc 3:34, 2 Macc 11:4).

However, I did like arnoldo's reference:

3. Leopard (4 wings/4 heads)= Greece

hoping that the four wings and heads would have some support for the Greek identification of the third beast, but of course Dan 11 shows how important the four were, dealing with it in half a verse before moving on to the two, the king of the north and the king of the south. This division in two is important for the image of the statue in Dan 2, representing the two legs as the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. In short Daniel seems little interested in the short-lived era of the diadochi. The writers are much more interested in the time of Antiochus IV.

Is this a plea to have the symbiont removed? Is there somewhere within where the human resists?

The little horn in Dan 8 is admitted here to be Antiochus IV, but not the little horn in Dan 7 according to our inerrantist. Let's look at Dan 8:9-12:

9 Out of one of them came forth another, a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land. 10 It grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down. 11 Even against the prince of the host it acted arrogantly; and it removed the regular sacrifice from Him, and the place of His sanctuary was thrown down. 12 And on account of transgression the host will be given over to the horn along with the regular sacrifice; and it will fling truth to the ground and perform its will and prosper.

The little horn attacked Jerusalem and like the fourth beast in Dan 7:6 trampled down everything. It acts and speaks with arrogance (7:8, 8:11). It overthrew the sanctuary, aggressed against the prince of the host (the prince of the covenant who was removed in 11:22 and the anointed one who was cut off in 9:26, these figures are all the anointed high priest Onias III, who was removed from office by Antiochus IV), and stopped the daily sacrifice (8:11, see also 9:27 and 11:31).

It should be obvious that we are dealing with the persecution of the Jews during the reign of Antiochus IV. Dan 7 doesn't talk about the stoppage of the sacrifice, but it does provide us with other clues:

23 "Thus he said: 'The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it. 24 'As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings. 25 'He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will attempt to change the times and the law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.

As I pointed out here the ten horns were

This is what is meant in 7:24 when it says he "shall put down three kings."

Antiochus instituted the monthly celebration of his birthday (2 Macc 6:7) naturally using the Greek calendar rather than the Jewish one. He also forbad the celebration of the sabbath (2 Macc 6:11). This indicates Antiochus attempting to change the times. 2 Macc 6:5 tells us that he covered the altar with abominable offerings that were forbidden by the law, indicating what the writer of Daniel refers to as his attempt to change the law.

Antiochus will have power over the Jews for three and a half years (a time, times, and half a time, 7:25, 12:7; half a week of years, 9:27; approximately 1150 days or 2300 mornings and evenings, 8:14), ie from 167 to 164 BCE.

Each of the four visions deal with the persecution of the Jews. In all four of them the villain is Antiochus IV. He is the arrogant little horn in 7:8 and 8:9-11. He actively interferes with the Jewish religion in all the visions.

Antiochus IV unites all these visions (showing that they deal with the same material from different literary perspectives) and explains all the salient images. The inerrantist approach is to separate the visions and confuse their significance because of the religious necessity of forcing them to fit early christian interpretations of them. Without such a need and armed with sufficient historical knowledge, it's not difficult to overcome christian bias and see that Daniel isn't such a hard book to understand.


spin