Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 01-25-2008, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: In case I have missed something, have you quoted a Scripture that you can accurately date where Daniel predicted something that came true?

In your post #7, you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Here's another sources on the issue.

"The issue--was it written BEFORE the events or NOT?
Notice carefully that our task is much more simple than would first appear. We do NOT have to demonstrate that the Book of Daniel was written according to conservative theories--in the 6th century BC. ALL we have to do (in this first part) is to demonstrate that it was written BEFORE 167 BC! If the prophecies were uttered even ten years before the event, then they constitute 'prophecy proper'. Strictly speaking, all that is therefore necessary to do is to demonstrate that the material/content in the book of Daniel was in existence by the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. We don't even have to show that the book was in its current form at all-if we can even find references or close/obvious allusions to the images/languages in Daniel, we will have ante-dated the events, and hence, have encountered 'real' prophecy."

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3x.html

What were you trying to prove with that?

I'm trying to prove the following (from the source in post #7) that the Qumran community who preserved the dead sea scrolls did not create out of thin air the book of daniel rather they simply made copies of the book of daniel from before 167 BC.

Quote:

"But not all texts found at Qumran were composed by the sect; many, like the books of Enoch and Daniel, were part of the wider literary heritage of Judaism...There is no clear case of an apocalypse actually authored within the Qumran community. " [Collins, HIDSS50B:404]

"Further, not a single document which has been identified as an apocalypse appears to have originated within the Qumran community...none of these documents was produced by the Qumran community." [Aune, HIDSS50B:626]

Johnny Skeptic · 01-25-2008, 09:38 PM

Message to anoldo: I still do not understand what you are trying to prove in this thread. I thought that your original intention was to try to reasonably prove that God inspired Daniel to write prophecies. If that was your original intention, you have not done so.

makerowner · 01-25-2008, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What were you trying to prove with that?

I'm trying to prove the following (from the source in post #7) that the Qumran community who preserved the dead sea scrolls did not create out of thin air the book of daniel rather they simply made copies of the book of daniel from before 167 BC.

Quote:

"But not all texts found at Qumran were composed by the sect; many, like the books of Enoch and Daniel, were part of the wider literary heritage of Judaism...There is no clear case of an apocalypse actually authored within the Qumran community. " [Collins, HIDSS50B:404]

"Further, not a single document which has been identified as an apocalypse appears to have originated within the Qumran community...none of these documents was produced by the Qumran community." [Aune, HIDSS50B:626]

I don't think anyone's saying that the Qumran community wrote Daniel; it disagrees with their theology on certain points that make that unlikely (eg. the Jerusalem temple cult and priesthood).
Your source is rather confused. Here is the key section about dating from Qumran:

Quote:

Ulrich notes that the Daniel manuscripts in Qumran reflect a different textual tradition than the Massoretic text:

"Moreover, since neither Qumran manuscript agrees with the MT in a single reading against the other Qumran manuscript, we can conclude that 4Qdan(a) and 4Qdan(b) stand in one text tradition over against that exemplified in the Masoretic textus receptus." [DSSOB:162]

What this entails (since 60% of the DSS are proto-Massoretic) is that Daniel had already circulated widely enough and been copied enough--prior to 150 BC-- to have created (at least) two textual "families". Minor textual variants, of course, might mean very little for dating purposes, but textual 'traditions' presuppose a "point of divergence" somewhere in the past. [This is a bit oversimplified, since "cross-fertilization" of traditions is known to have occurred.] To create a 'tradition' the document has to create multiple "generations" of copying (not just lots of copying of the original), and to believe this occurred within some 15 years of the date of authorship (i.e., written in 165, and having been copied many, many times--along separate linear paths-- by 150) is quite a stretch.

The huge problem with this argument is that the MT is not attested from 150 BC. It was compiled "between the seventh and tenth centuries CE" according to Wikipedia. That's certainly enough time for variant manuscript traditions to develop. The Septuagint version of Daniel is also evidence that a lot of change can occur even in authoritative texts over a short time. The actual date of translation is unknown, but it was some time in the 1st or 2nd century BC, so at most about 150 years. By this time, the LXX text had acquired three whole sections not found in the MT, and not among the DSS, if I'm not mistaken.

Quote:

The later-dater scholars would have to have Daniel written (1) during the Revolt--VERY QUICKLY!; or (2) after the revolt, when the gentile powers had been overcome. Since this last option is much more probable (given the generally time-consuming nature of an armed revolt), this would put the pseudonymous composition somewhere no earlier than 165 bc. [But this removes, by the way, some of the argument as to WHY the book was composed. If it was composed to 'encourage' the resistance, it would have been produced during the revolt, somehow given authoritative/scriptural status--in spite of its unknown authorship, and widely distributed, ALL WITHIN A PERIOD OF MONTHS!]

I don't think Daniel was written to encourage the revolt. The Maccabeans are referred to as "a little help" in 11:34; hardly a rousing battle cry! The real 'heroes' in Daniel are "those among the people who are wise" (11:33), about whom nothing is said of armed resistance.

juergen · 01-25-2008, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

DATE OF THE BOOK
The Daniel fragments found at Qumran also speak to the issue of Daniel’s authenticity. As mentioned earlier, conventional scholarship generally places the final composition of Daniel during the second century B.C. Yet, the book claims to have been written by a Daniel who lived in the sixth century B.C. However, the Dead Sea fragments of Daniel present compelling evidence for the earlier, biblical date of this book.
The relatively copious remains of Daniel indicate the importance of this book to the Qumran community. Further, there are clear indications that this book was considered “canonical” for the community, which meant it was recognized as an authoritative book on a par with other biblical books (e.g., Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, Psalms). The canonicity of Daniel at Qumran is indicated, not only by the prolific fragments, but by the manner in which it is referenced in other materials. One fragment employs the quotation, “which was written in the book of Daniel the prophet.” This phrase, similar to Jesus’ reference to “Daniel the prophet” (Matthew 24:15), was a formula typically applied to quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran (see Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:51).
The canonical status of Daniel at Qumran is important to the date and authenticity of the book. If, as critical scholars allege, Daniel reached its final form around 160 B.C., how could it have attained canonical status at Qumran in a mere five or six decades? While we do not know exactly how long it took for a book to reach such authoritative status, it appears that more time is needed for this development (see Bruce, 1988, pp. 27-42). Interestingly, even before the most recent publication of Daniel fragments, R.K. Harrison recognized that the canonical status of Daniel at Qumran militated against its being a composition of the Maccabean era, and served as confirmation of its authenticity (1969, p. 1126-1127).
Although Harrison made this observation in 1969, over three decades before the large cache of Cave 4 documents was made available to the general and scholarly public, no new evidence has refuted it. On the contrary, the newly released texts from Qumran have confirmed this conclusion. The canonical acceptance of Daniel at Qumran indicates the antiquity of the book’s composition—certainly much earlier than the Maccabean period. Hence, the most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts offer confirmation of Daniel’s authenticity; it was written when the Bible says it was written.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/266

I guess the people who wrote the book of daniel deluded themselves into thinking it was prophetic?

It wouldn't be the first time it happens, even in Christian churches. Have you ever been in churches where a prophets predict all kinds of stuff? I've heard a few prophecies, and they were dissapointingly wrong. I assume they were really convinced of what they said, else they wouldn't have said it? I'd be surprised if people like Nostradamus, even Benny Hinn did not believe they were right about what they wrote.

In regard to the above source, I'm curious what else did the Qumran community consider scripture? I was aware it was considered a jewish sect, so I figured they have a different set of holy scriptures than jews, but I might be totally wrong on that.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-25-2008, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

"DATE OF THE BOOK

"The Daniel fragments found at Qumran also speak to the issue of Daniel’s authenticity. As mentioned earlier, conventional scholarship generally places the final composition of Daniel during the second century B.C. Yet, the book claims to have been written by a Daniel who lived in the sixth century B.C. However, the Dead Sea fragments of Daniel present compelling evidence for the earlier, biblical date of this book.

"The relatively copious remains of Daniel indicate the importance of this book to the Qumran community. Further, there are clear indications that this book was considered “canonical” for the community, which meant it was recognized as an authoritative book on a par with other biblical books (e.g., Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, Psalms). The canonicity of Daniel at Qumran is indicated, not only by the prolific fragments, but by the manner in which it is referenced in other materials. One fragment employs the quotation, “which was written in the book of Daniel the prophet.” This phrase, similar to Jesus’ reference to “Daniel the prophet” (Matthew 24:15), was a formula typically applied to quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran (see Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:51).

"The canonical status of Daniel at Qumran is important to the date and authenticity of the book. If, as critical scholars allege, Daniel reached its final form around 160 B.C., how could it have attained canonical status at Qumran in a mere five or six decades? While we do not know exactly how long it took for a book to reach such authoritative status, it appears that more time is needed for this development (see Bruce, 1988, pp. 27-42). Interestingly, even before the most recent publication of Daniel fragments, R.K. Harrison recognized that the canonical status of Daniel at Qumran militated against its being a composition of the Maccabean era, and served as confirmation of its authenticity (1969, p. 1126-1127).

"Although Harrison made this observation in 1969, over three decades before the large cache of Cave 4 documents was made available to the general and scholarly public, no new evidence has refuted it. On the contrary, the newly released texts from Qumran have confirmed this conclusion. The canonical acceptance of Daniel at Qumran indicates the antiquity of the book’s composition—certainly much earlier than the Maccabean period. Hence, the most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts offer confirmation of Daniel’s authenticity; it was written when the Bible says it was written."

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/266

I guess the people who wrote the book of Daniel deluded themselves into thinking it was prophetic?

I guess the people who wrote all prophecies in all religious books deluded themselves into thinking it was prophetic?

If the God of the Bible exists, it would have been a simple matter for him to convince at least 99% of the people in the world that he can predict the future thousands of years ago, and he could easily do so today if he wanted to. This reasonably proves that he does not exist since it would not make any sense for an omnipotent God to want to try to convince people to believe that he can predict the future but be unable to do it.

spin · 01-26-2008, 12:47 AM

arnoldo, I'm still waiting for you to deal with my post about Dan 11. It has consequences on all of Daniel. If you want to support the erroneous christian interpretations, surely you have to find a more applicable analysis of Dan 11.

spin

sugarhitman · 01-26-2008, 07:07 AM

Critics say that the book of Daniel was written in 200 B.C. after the events, and then say that it is historically incorrect....even after being written after the events!! More none-sense. But even if it were (it wasn't) that still will not help them. Because the rise and division of Rome the 4th empire came much later. In fact the division did not occur until 476 A.D.! In Nebby's statue we have four different metals representing 4 world empires which would rise upon the earth. Daniel was alive to see two of these kingdoms and showed in a vision who the third would be. Here are the kingdoms in order:

1. Head of gold=Babylon=Lion

2. Chest and arms of silver=Medo-Persia=Bear raised up on one side (to show that the Persians were the more powerful side)

3. Stomach and thighs of brass=Greece=Leopard with four heads (Macedonia, Thrace, Egypt, Syria)
4.Two-legs of Iron=ROME=Dreadful beast with ten horns with two metals iron and brass (the iron teeth and brass claws shows that this kingdom consist of the Romans *iron*and the Greeks *brass*) Two legs depicts East Rome and West Rome.

4. Toes made with iron and clay=Divided powers of East and West Rome=10 horns

Spin has tried to make Greece the 4th kingdom by seperating the Medes and the Persians and making one of them to be the stomach and thighs. But that will not help the critcs because Daniel does not seperate the two: "Your (Babylon) kingdom is divided and given to the MEDES AND PERSIANS" thus Medo-Persia becomes the chest and arms of silver. Medes one arm the Persians the other. They are the second world empire. Greece conquered them to become the third of brass. Now Daniel does not name the 4th, but it does not take a genius to know who this is...Rome.

Daniel predicted that the 4th kingdom would not be conquered by another people but divided. This is exactly what happened to Rome! Due to internal conflicts the empire fell into seperate kingdoms. The first stage of this division happen when Rome divided into east and west Rome. The East was controled by the Greeks (Yes the Roman Empire was also of the Greeks), the west by the italians and later the Germenic tribes.

Through out history since the collaspe of the empire these divided European powers have held on as the movers and shakers of the world. The Ottoman Empire, The Holy Roman Empire, British Empire, German Empire, Soviet Union, America (yes America is a European power) Byzantine etc. Has proved Daniels prophecy:"They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave to one another" and "it shall devour the whole earth and break it in pieces I.E. A brittle unity but these powers have colonize the whole planet! which has been true for ages.

It is in the days of these kings that the stones falls and brake the image...the time since 476 a.d.

Now since the prophecy of Rome has been accurate 100% in fact and that this certainly proves that Daniel was written before the events. Critics are now trying to misinterpret Nebby's dream (like spin trying to seperate the Medes and Persian kingdom) So accurate Daniel is it has become one of the most targeted books by the skeptics so much so that their arguments have become....ludicrous. :wave:

Johnny Skeptic · 01-26-2008, 07:38 AM

Quote: