Don’t they teach you in moderator school to never turn your back on a wounded thread?
Critics who undermine the genuiness of the book of Daniel do so in order to attack the foundations of Christianity. Matthew and Mark (Matt24:15, Mk13:14) testify that Jesus referenced the book of Daniel, called him a prophet of God, and advised future generations to read and heed the warnings contained in the book. If Jesus, Who claimed to be Truth itself, is found supporting a falsehood or fable, then Christianity collapses. Fortunately, this is not the case, and the content of the book of Daniel reveals its authorship and its genuiness. The book presents an ongoing historical account from beginning to end of "the times of the gentiles, from the first gentile nation reigning at the start of Israel’s national captivity and it ends with the last. The stated purpose of the book was to inform those who lived at the end of time (Dan12:4) what would occur, presumably so they would not be shaken by the turmoil. The book accurately predicts 2500 ongoing years and 5 successive world kingdoms: Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, Rome, and the revived Roman empire (the ten toes of the image in Dan2:34). The accuracy of the book reveals its authorship (God) and considering that those ten toes recently planted themselves back in Babylon under the rule of the last great gentile world system, it should cause the detractors of the book to instead take Jesus’ advice and study its message.
The Roman Empire has been revived??
When did that happen, how come I missed it?
Who is emperor atm?
Bible Man, how do you explain the elementary factual errors which Diogenes and others point out? Do you maintain that, say, Nebuchadnezzar’s son was called Belshazzar and that eg. king Nabonidus did not exist?
On many occassions Biblical ancestry lists a distant member of the family tree as being the father while ignoring more immediate relationships. For instance, we are all listed as being sons (and daughters) of Adam. Both Mary and Joseph are listed as the offspring of David, etc. Any fathers or kings that may have existed between Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar are of no import to the past or future events being communicated by Daniel and are therefore not listed in the chronology. The main point is that Belshazzar was well acquainted with God’s past dealings with Nebuchadnezzar and failed to be warned by them, which resulted in instant judgement. Historians have challenged the Bible in many areas and have always been proven wrong as more archeology is uncovered (the Hittites and Pontius Pilate’s existence were once challenged by historians for example). The Bible has always stood up to all critical examination and is 100% accurate in its history as well as its predictive prophecies (which, I might add, are being fulfilled on a daily basis)
The Roman empire was never overthrown but was broken up by several barbarian tribes into the existing countries of Europe:
Alamanni (Germany)
Burgundians (Switzerland)
Anglo Saxons (England)
Suevi (Portugal)
Lumbards (Italy)
Visigoths (Spain)
Franks (France)
The Vandals, Heruli and Ostrogoths were destroyed by the papacy as predicted in Daniel 7:8, but other European countries have since taken their place and now make up the ten toes of Daniel’s vision. The first unifying power of these nations was the papacy and, as Daniel predicted, later attempts to unify them would fail (Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler, etc). Daniel prophesied that only in our time would these separate nations be brought into any kind of harmonious working relationship. The illustration of ten toes is a perfect picture of what is seen today: countries separate and diverse yet united in most of their goals and worldviews.
Ho boy, this is gonna be interesting.
When it comes to my Biblical interpretation I prefer serious scholarship, not people claiming that said scholarship “attacks the foundations of Christianity.” Diogenes can handle it, though I’ve got a couple of books on Daniel I could happily post from, and somewhere on this computer is my essay on Daniel. I could post that, too, but it’s too long for a single post.
The Visigoths were pretty much wiped out as a nation by the Arabs, and the Lombards by Charlemagne, and the Allemani really were pretty much only in Alsace and Switzerland…other German tribes were a lot more influential. The Vandals, Ostragoths, and Heruli were mostly destroyed by the Byzantines, not the papacy.
However, this is getting kind of far afield from the dating of Daniel.
That’s nice.
However, no one here is trying to “undermine the genuiness of the book of Daniel.” While there is a small contigent of people who believe that the bible could only be true if it is all literally true, a much larger number of believers recognize that the truth of scripture does not rely on the process by which it was created.
We are only discussing the dates (and, possibly, the author(s)) of the book of Daniel, not whether it is genuinely the word fo God. (Mind, you, it is quite possible to find folks around here who will challenge whether it is the word of God, either because they hold other works to be inspired or because they do not believe in god, but they have not been participating in this thread, to date.)
My family is from Sicily and if we’re bloody Lombards I’ll eat my keyboard. Italy is not linguistically and culturally heterogeneous.
It’s better to say that the question of whether the book of Daniel is the word of God isn’t what this discussion is about.
I would pretty much call “being broken up” being the definition of “overthrown” myself, especially in this context.
The Roman empire was indeed overthrown, in 1453 by the Turks. Although that’s probably not what Bible man was thinking of.
- Daniel is a Jewish book, not a Christian one.
- What do you mean by “genuiness?” I don’t even think that’s a word. If you’re talking about a critical evaluation of the book as containg authentic predictive prophecy, the “undermine” is the wrong word. Scholars are not out to “undermine” anything, but simply to discover whatever objective truths they are able to. If you have a problem with their conclusions, then show us how the methodology is flawed.
Strictly speaking, we only have Mark’s word for it that Jesus cited Daniel (Matthew copied Mark), but even if Jesus really said that, and was really wrong about it, any problems that may engender for a particular view of Christianity are immaterial to what the empirical evidence says about the Book of Daniel. It is not the job of the scholar to protect religiously based historical beliefs against objective evidence, The ramifications for Mark misunderstanding Daniel are a subject for a different discussion and are of no consequence to this one
Where does the content of the book reveal the author and what do you mean by "genuiness?’
Daniel gets its history wrong and says nothing about Rome. Daniels four kingdoms are the Babylonians, the Median (which a. was listed separately from the Persian kingdom and b. never existed), the Persians and the Greeks. Daniel also gets everything wrong that it tries to predict after 164 BCE. Did you read my first post on this? Daniel is incredibly inaccurate.
I will ignore the witnessing as it as no bearing on the debate. can you actually make a case for a 6th century BCE dating of Daniel? Do you have an explanation for all the inaccuracies and anachronisms?
This all very nice but Belshazzar was not descended from Nebuchadnezzar at all. His father, Nabonidus, was a usurper to the throne. Moreover, Belshazzar was never the king of Babylon and neither Belshazzar, nor Nabonidus nor any other king of Babylon was ever conquered by anyone called “Darius the Mede,” or by any other Mede. Babylon, under it’s last king, Nabonidus, was conqered by Cyrus the Persian. There never was a Median kingdom and there never was a “Medo-Persian” kingdom.
What does this assertion have to do with dating the Book of Daniel?
No they weren’t. I know it’s a popular apologist canard that scholars denied the existence of the Hittites but that’s complete BS. Name three historians who ever denied the existence of the Hittites. Name two. Name one. Name one who denied the existence of Pilate.
As to the archaeological evidence…you cannot be serious. This is a completely different debate and off topic for the dating of Daniel, but if you’d like, I can start a new thread discussing what the archaeology actually proves and doesn’t prove.
Again, we’re off topic here, but precious little of the Bible has stod up to historical scrutiny, and not one single example of genuine predictive prophecy can be demonstrated in any of its pages.
Getting back on topic, f you don’t answer anything else, tell me why Daniel attributed to conquest of Babylon to a guy who never existed.
Wait, there wasn’t? Are you sure? Doesn’t Herodotos talk about a Medean kingdom, with the last king being Astyages, who was overthrown by Cyrus?
Ok, I phrased myself badly. There was never a Median king of Babylon. Cyrus conquered both the Babylonians and the Medes, but the Medes never conquered Babylon and there was no post-Babyonian Median Empire as Daniel claims, nor was there a king called"Darius the Mede."
There was a Median kingdom in what is now Iran. It began (surrounded in folklore and reported unreliably by Herodotus) in the seventh century B.C.E. and came into full power as partners of the Chaldeans in their assault on Assyria at which point the Chaldeans “became” the Babylonians. The greatest Median ruler, Cyaxares, ruled from around 625 B.C.E. to 575 B.C.E. and governed a territory large enough to be considered an empire. However, after their joint defeat of the Assyrians, the Medes took Northeastern Assyria and did not settle or govern in the Mesopotamian region, and so they never legitimately figured in the tales described in the book of Daniel.
Later, the Persian Cyrus II (the Great) overthrew the Median rulers in 550, creating what could be considered a “Medo-Persian” empire (initially), but as he extended his power westward, crushing the Babylonians, the only Median aspect of his empire was some small measure of the bureaucracy in Persia and certainly no “Medo-Persian” empire ruled Mesopotamia or the Levant.
Sorry. I had that post keyed when I was called away and just hit “submit” when I returned.
During the period of time that the Goths were invading the Roman empire from all directions, the Roman emperor Justinian was being overcome by them and was backed up to the walls of Rome. The bishop of Rome desired neutrality and did not side with either, but Justinian gained entrance through his friendship with the bishop’s wife. Once in, he murdered the bishop and replaced him with Sylvester (538AD) The papacy emerged by this unique merger of church and state. Most of the barbarian tribes went on to embrace Christianity but three of them also accepted the teachings of Arian. Papal Rome violently oppossed Arianism and destroyed the 3 tribes (Vandals,Heruli,Ostrogoths) which embraced the heresy. Thus, the (Roman) Catholic church was instrumental in keeping the Roman empire from being destroyed by the Goths thru this merger of church and state. As also predicted by Daniel, the papacy’s influence over these countries of Europe lasted for exactly 1260 years when, in 1798, Napoleon captured the pope and ended papal Rome’s political rule.
Daniel says nothing about either Rome or the Papacy.