Dare to Date a Daniel?

2»

Comments

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    You believe you do.

    I believe I do what Sir? I believe that I do know that there is no dialectical antithesis for the historical understanding that the fourth beast of Dan. 7 is Rome. And I believe that I do know that the horns of the beasts are significant male individual leaders. Can I rationally believe otherwise?

    Yes.

    What and how?

    Yes, you can rationally believe otherwise.

    Er, what and how?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I find many of your posts on this thread impossible to understand - and it's pretty obvious that I'm not alone in that.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    What's that got to do with you not answering my question?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    But I did, and your post proves what I said about your ability to make rational post. The "you" in my first post was not a generic usage, but specifically addressed to you, Martin54. If you want to present a rational argument, you have that ability.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    But you didn't; for the fourth time of asking, what is your alternative?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I can't give one because I cannot understand many of your posts. I'm not alone in that - GG. Eutychus and others say the same. It's quite possible that were I able to understand them, I'd end up agreeing with you. I am not positing another position, because I don't know what yours is.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    They don't have the same problem you do.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Perhaps, or perhaps just keeping quiet.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Both. So for the fifth time, what rational alternative do you have to the answer?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Martin, I've said it before - until I know what you're saying, I don't know if I agree with it or not, whether to suggest an alternative or not.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Paraphrasing the question that you responded to but can't:

    I know that there is no dialectical antithesis for the historical understanding that the fourth beast of Dan. 7 is Rome.

    And I know that the horns of the beasts are significant male individual leaders.

    Can I rationally believe otherwise?

    If so, what?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited June 2020
    And your earlier and lengthy posts?

    You say that you know - any references to support that?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited June 2020
    Yeah, see above. Dan. 7, >163 BCE, describes the Western Roman Empire 3 centuries before its height.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Why is that the W Roman Empire, and not Genghis Khan? It is speculation, not proven fact.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Perhaps you could define dialectical antithesis for the rest of us, Martin.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Why is that the W Roman Empire, and not Genghis Khan? It is speculation, not proven fact.

    Riiight.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Perhaps you could define dialectical antithesis for the rest of us, Martin.

    Why?
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Because it would make your train of thought easier to follow.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    The traditional, historic, plain, obvious, simple, common sense understanding, synthesis of the beasts of Dan. 7 has not been equalled, let alone superseded, by an antithesis of Genghis Khan or the British or Martians following on from the Babylonians, Medo-Persians and Greeks.

    Unless anyone knows otherwise.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I'd say that the reading you give is traditional and historic. But I'd not apply any of the other adjectives to it, any more than I'd apply them to Genghis Khan - or to any suggestion that Stalin's empire provides the perfect fit - a very good fit yes, just as Rome has been thought to be.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    I'd say that the reading you give is traditional and historic. But I'd not apply any of the other adjectives to it, any more than I'd apply them to Genghis Khan - or to any suggestion that Stalin's empire provides the perfect fit - a very good fit yes, just as Rome has been thought to be.

    Well that's that then.
  • {Wrestles old fundamentalist hat from the dust bunnies in mental attic.}

    FWIW: What I've seen Martin say on this thread about Daniel, prophecy, etc. isn't stuff he made up, nor is he being purposely obscure. That whole area of thought and study is much, much more complicated than anything Martin has said. IIRC long ago comments from him about his church background: we grew up in somewhat different parts of the fund/evo End Times spectrum; but the interpretations weren't totally dissimilar.

    IOW: you may think the ideas are crazy. They may or may not be, and *that* doesn't necessarily say whether they could/should/will happen. I don't particularly have an opinion on any of it.

    But if you want to walk on the wild side a bit:

    --Search on "beast 10 horns historic figures".
    --Search on "daniel revelation end times how to interpret".
    --Read/skim "Late, Great Planet Earth", by Hal Lindsey. (Only because it was a big deal, back in the day, and covers relevant material.)
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I am not saying that Martin is not using a standard interpretation of Daniel; what I am saying is that while Rome fits, and has been used for centuries, it's not the only fit available to us.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Aye. The complexity is chaff, dross. Dan. 7's final beast is simply and obviously Rome, which was rising at the time it was written. The horns are the issue, and the simple, obvious fit is 90-95%

    The infinitely bigger issue is why is it so hard to believe from the Enlightenment? To believe in God? A 100% fit would make it simple.
  • My apologies to all for arriving late at the party. The introduction to Daniel in the first (1966) Jerusalem Bible gives three or four paragraphs to the dating question. For a reader like myself, who has no horse in this race — that is to say, who feels no urge to prefer one date to another, but simply likes to have some notion of how the books of the OT may be realistically listed in their approximate chronological order of composition — there are no obvious flaws in the JB’s analysis. I have never seen any convincing refutation of the points made here. This is the key section:

    The date of composition is decided by clear evidence given in ch. 11. The wars between the Seleucids and Ptolemies and a portion of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes are described with a wealth of detail quite unnecessary for the author's purpose. This account bears no resemblance to any of the Old Testament prophecies and, despite its prophetic style, refers to events already past. But from 11:40 onwards the tone changes and the ‘Time of the End’ is foretold in a way that is reminiscent of the other prophets. The book must therefore have been written during the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes and before his death, even before the success of the Maccabaean revolt ; that is to say between 167 and 164.

    There is nothing in the rest of the book to contradict this dating. The narratives of the first section are set in the Chaldaean period, but there are indications that the author is writing a short time after the events. Belshazzar was the son of Nabonid and not, as the book says, of Nebuchadnezzar ; nor was he ever king. Darius the Mede is unknown to historians, nor is there room for him between the last Chaldaean king and Cyrus the Persian who had already conquered the Medes. The neo-Babylonian background is described in words of Persian origin ; the instruments in Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra are given names transliterated from the Greek. The dates given in the book agree neither among themselves nor with history as we know it, and they seem to have been placed at the chapter heads without much care for chronology. It seems therefore that ancient traditions, the extent of which is hard to determine , have provided the material for a much later work.

    The late composition of the book explains its position in the Hebrew Bible. It was admitted after the canon of the Prophets had already been fixed, and placed between Esther and Ezra among the varied group of ‘other writings’ forming the last section of the Hebrew canon. The Greek and Latin Bibles put it among the Prophets and add certain deuterocanonical sections, namely, the Psalm of Azariah and the Canticle of the Three Youths, 3:24-90; the story of Susanna illustrating the shrewdness of the young Daniel, ch. 13; and the stories of Bel and the sacred serpent, which are satires on idolatry, ch . 14.

    The aim of this book was to sustain faith and hope among the Jews persecuted by Antiochus Epiphanes. Daniel and his companions had been similarly tempted: to desert the Law, ch. 1, and to commit idolatry, ch. 3 and 6. From these trials they emerged victorious, and the persecutors were forced to acknowledge the power of the true God.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Thanks @Ray Sunshine. How could one forget in ones dotage that Darius the Mede never existed, that the Jews put the Book of Daniel in the Ketuvim and not the Nevi'im Aharonim for multiple reasons: its late authorship and the 'poetic license' of apocalyptic being two.

    Perversely the fiction of Darius makes the horns more credible as dynasties as well as individual leaders. Which dilutes, blurs the concept, the clarity admittedly. Makes shoe horning easier and looser.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Shouldn't that be horn shoeing in this instance?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    I hate you.
Sign In or Register to comment.