Date of The Book of Daniel (New title for merged threads)

[Captain_Amazing]

@Bible man

My case for the book of Daniel has always been that it dates itself: the text clearly states the time period it was written.

The text doesn’t state the time period it was written. It gives dates it took place, but not when it was written.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Not that it would prove anything even if it did.

Bible man, it sounds like you’re making your case based on two things…that the book purports to document predictive prophecies made in the 6th century BCE and because the Gospels claim that Jesus cited the book as prophetic. Both of these arguments rely on a priori faith in scripture and do not represent empirical proofs of anything. It is circular to say that a claim within a text is proof in itself of the truth of the claim and it is purely an article of faith that Jesus could not be mistaken (or misquoted) as to the meaning or authenticity of a prophetic text.

@Bibleman

You are the one with the burden of proof to disprove the accuracy of what the book says about itself.

Actually, I’m not the one with the burden, but I’ve already done so anyway. I refer you to my first post in this thread.

My previous attempts to relieve you of that burden by simply showing the accuracy of the book’s prophetic content were unsuccessful.

They certainly were.

So now you’re on your own - What are your sources and reasons\assumptions\facts\faith,etc for believing that it was written at a later date, written by someone else, etc etc

I’ve already presented my argument. Go back to page one of this thread and read my first post.

[Gorsnak]

@Bible man

Of course Napoleon himself did not walk into the Vatican, arrest the pope personally, take him to France himself and turn the key in the lock at the prison. But Napoleon ordered those events and stands historically responsible for them.

Well, as I said, it was merely a nitpick. However, you’re still wrong. The order to take Rome and the historical responsibility for it lies with the Directory, and not with Napoleon. Napoleon didn’t stage his coup and declare himself First Consul until the Nov 9, 1899. In 1898, France was ruled by five Directors. It was the Directory which issued the orders, and General Berthier who executed them. Napoleon, as I said, was busy preparing for his Egyptian campaign and had virtually nothing to do with any of this. But, as I said, none of this is particularly important.

And did the papacy suddenly end when that happened? Of course not, it continues to this day but was never and will never be a political or military force in the world as it was before Napoleon took action.

This, however, is just wrong. The Papal States were restored only two years later, were re-invaded by France 8 years after that, and were restored once again in 1815. The degree of political influence wielded by the Papacy was not noticeably different after Napoleon’s demise than it had been prior to the French Revolution. There are scores of more significant dates in the long tale of the decline of Papal political influence. 1534, for example, or 1648.

This has nothing to do with failing to see the forest for the trees. You, my friend, are inventing trees and declaring them to be a forest.