The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel

Why isn't 'Daniel's' book included amongst the prophets in the Hebrew Bible?

Cheers Buz,So, what do we have so far?We have extants texts from centuries after these 'predictions' were made.We also have the fact that the Book of Daniel is never mentioned anywhere at all until the mid 2nd century BCE, well after the 'predictions' as well.So far then we have two pieces of evidence that *suggest* that the text was late, and no good reason to believe that the author(s) were contemporaries of the events in Daniel.Let's add another piece of evidence for the late date for Daniel.From the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: When the OT canon was fixed at the Synod of Jamnia, ca. A.D. 90, Daniel was included in the Writings or third section - not the Prophets or second section. The reason for this was that the second section had come to be regarded as closed since ca. 200 B.C., and the Synod was only concerned to adjudicate on the still fluid third section. The attempt to show that Daniel was originally amongst the Prophets fails on the evidence of the talmud (B.B. 15a). That Daniel was widely recognised as scripture from the second and first centuries B.C. onward can be in no doubt. Thus far, and we havent even looked at the historical errors yet, we have:1. No mention of the Book of Daniel at all until the mid 2nd century BCE2. No texts in existence that date any older then the mid-2nd century BCE.3. Daniel's book was not included in Jewish Scripture that was closed in ca. 200 BCE.4. There is no evidence that the Book of Daniel was considered to be scripture before the 2nd century BCE.We have 4 pieces of evidence that all point to a date of later than 200 BCE for the construction of Daniel, and not a single piece of evidence to accept that it was written before that time.I have only scratched the surface here, the evidence pointing to a mid 2nd century origin of the text is really overwhelming, but I do not want to post too much at one time because Starman has great difficulty in answering any questions put to him, so I'd rather focus on one or two points at a time so we can construct a picture of what went on with the book.

As usual, in your ignorance of how Biblical eschatology works, you choose to secularize the holy writ by isolating texts and skewing them into secular literature. Both corroborated visions are of the world class empires and both end with the end time messianic prince of princes/conquering stone and you refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Starman is obviously a highly intelligent, articulate, efficient and witty contribution to EvC. Pay attention to his wisdom and your Biblical understanding will be enhanced.

PaulK writes:Except that the stone is never identified as a single person. The stone simply seems to be the Kingdom of God. There simply is no corroboration there.

quote:

---

As usual, in your ignorance of how Biblical eschatology works, you choose to secularize the holy writ by isolating texts and skewing them into secular literature. Both corroborated visions are of the world class empires and both end with the end time messianic prince of princes/conquering stone and you refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

---

On the contrary, I find that Paul is looking at the Book of Daniel in it's cultural , historical, and original religious setting, and what had meaning to the original author, rather than how some people centuries later tried to retrofit it to their own agenda.As far as starman being 'intelligent and articulate', I think that translates into 'his religious beliefs are the same as mine'. There seems to be a certain inability to comprehend or even consider alternate explanations.

That can work both ways, Ramos. The POMs here often attest to that.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

quote:

---

As usual, in your ignorance of how Biblical eschatology works, you choose to secularize the holy writ by isolating texts and skewing them into secular literature.

---

On the contrary. I know enough of your Biblical eschatology to understand that it leads to serious misunderstandings of the Bible.That, after, all, is why your side is losing so badly in this debate.

quote:

---

Starman is obviously a highly intelligent, articulate, efficient and witty contribution to EvC. Pay attention to his wisdom and your Biblical understanding will be enhanced.

​

PaulK writes:

​

Except that the stone is never identified as a single person. The stone simply seems to be the Kingdom of God. There simply is no corroboration there.

​

As usual, in your ignorance of how Biblical eschatology works, you choose to secularize the holy writ by isolating texts and skewing them into secular literature. Both corroborated visions are of the world class empires and both end with the end time messianic prince of princes/conquering stone and you refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

​

PaulK writes:

​

You mean he is right to grossly misrepresent my arguments, because it is the only way you can deal with them ? He is right to misrepresent and reject the Bible, because the Bible is subject to the dogma that you share ? He is right to confuse matters by failing even to keep track of his own arguments, because you have no real case ?

​

If you praise starman's dismal record you only confirm how hopelessly weak your position is.

​

Starman is obviously a highly intelligent, articulate, efficient and witty contribution to EvC. Pay attention to his wisdom and your Biblical understanding will be enhanced.

---

Then I guess that his religion must be responsible for his dismal showing. And since this thread nicely demonstrates that his understanding of the Bible is severely lacking, I have nothing to learn form him on that score.

Your idea of representing the bible right might best be fulfilled by a garbage man. You seem to want to extend the Greco Macedonian empire to the ends of time. The bible clearly puts it in a time and place. You seem to want to have the end times end in 160 BC, which is absurd, and unsupportable.
Chiefly, it seems you want to knock Jesus out of the Messiah role, and stick some sad sack dead king in there, who could never dream of starting to fulfill the requirements of being the Lamb, slain from the foundations of the world, that the sacrifices of His people of old all pointed to.The stone that comes to rule all kingdoms, is not a person, by the way, any balanced understanding of this from the bible leads to God taking over, not man. In fact, the stone you mention, if you notice was cut without human hands! The demolition derby that destroys the kingdoms of this world can only be presided over by God.

Well, God bless you, and thanks for the compliment. Actually, I may hit a few high notes, but generally am not that intelligent. Don't expect too much of me.I should point out, that I was suspended yesterday, for some reason, not quite sure why. My idea about EVC forums, is that they are unsuitable for a reasoned, balanced discussion, and the moderation is tilted against things Christian. No long lived serious exchange, in an equally yoked environment is possible here, in my opinion. Therefore, only avoiding this place, or engaging in some hit and run, till you get caught, sort of strategy is possible.That seems to be the simple reality here. I would suggest you rethink any perceived calling, or need to be bogged down here. It is a big world, and there are lots of forums. Why be unequally yoked with unbelievers??Cheers.

quote:

---

1. No mention of the Book of Daniel at all until the mid 2nd century BCE

​

2. No texts in existence that date any older then the mid-2nd century BCE.

​

3. Daniel's book was not included in Jewish Scripture that was closed in ca. 200 BCE.

​

4. There is no evidence that the Book of Daniel was considered to be scripture before the 2nd century BCE.

---

1) - Support for this claim?2) - Support for this claim? Says WHO?3) -Support for this claim?4) - What evidence from that time for any book being scripture do you have?? !!

quote:

---

Your idea of representing the bible right might best be fulfilled by a garbage man. You seem to want to extend the Greco Macedonian empire to the ends of time. The bible clearly puts it in a time and place.

---

No, I don't. I have never stated nor implied anything of the sort.

quote:

---

The bible clearly puts it in a time and place. You seem to want to have the end times end in 160 BC, which is absurd, and unsupportable.

---

Daniel 8 provides significant support, backed up by the other "prophecies" in Daniel.
Remember that Daniel 8 is explicitly stated to be an End Times prophecy, and explicitly stated to refer to what we would call the Hellenistic period.The clear references to the acts of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel provide further evidence confirming this interpretation,

quote:

---

Chiefly, it seems you want to knock Jesus out of the Messiah role, and stick some sad sack dead king in there, who could never dream of starting to fulfill the requirements of being the Lamb, slain from the foundations of the world, that the sacrifices of His people of old all pointed to.

---

I want you to recognise the fact that the Bible does not restrict the term "messiah" to one singular individual. There are messiahs and The Messiah. Isaiah 45:1 explicitly states that Cyrus is a messiah. I have repeatedly made this distinction so that no reasonable person could honestly believe that I was claiming that Cyrus was The Messiah. So why do you keep trying to pretend otherwise ?The fact that Jesus is not an especially good candidate for The Messiah is a side issue, only mentioned in passing. Everyone who knows the Bible understands that the majority of messianic prophecies have yet to be fulfilled.

quote:

---

The stone that comes to rule all kingdoms, is not a person, by the way, any balanced understanding of this from the bible leads to God taking over, not man. In fact, the stone you mention, if you notice was cut without human hands! The demolition derby that destroys the kingdoms of this world can only be presided over by God.

---

Thank you for having the honesty to admit that I was right on this point. It was Buzsaw who claimed that the stone was a single person.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, I don't. I have never stated nor implied anything of the sort.

---

Yes, if you claim Greece is anything more than the belly an thighs of the image, you do. A belly and thighs that were to be followed by another kingdom. Another kingdom that would be here when God takes over.

quote:

---

Daniel 8 provides significant support, backed up by the other "prophecies" in Daniel.
Remember that Daniel 8 is explicitly stated to be an End Times prophecy, and explicitly stated to refer to what we would call the Hellenistic period.

​

The clear references to the acts of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel provide further evidence confirming this interpretation,

---

Having some local fulfillments to prophesy never preclude the ultimate fulfillments. The key to knowing where the one gets off, and the other starts, is context, and balance, and the rest of the book. Something you sorely lack the ability to deal with.

quote:

---

I want you to recognise the fact that the Bible does not restrict the term "messiah" to one singular individual. There are messiahs and The Messiah.

---

Nonsense!!!! There is only One that was to come to save mankind, and make things right again, and that Lamb of God was looked forward to from the getgo. Calling a king of this world a messiah, is really a misapplication of the term. Anointed is anointed, and saving mankind is saving mankind, and paving the way back to God. All things are not equal.

quote:

---

The fact that Jesus is not an especially good candidate for The Messiah is a side issue, only mentioned in passing. Everyone who knows the Bible understands that the majority of messianic prophecies have yet to be fulfilled.

---

His birth place, virgin birth, and a lot of other details are given, right on up to the manner of death. To declare Him otherwise is nothing short of an admission of gross ignorance.Of course there is much still to be fulfilled, that does not take away from what so obviously already has been!

quote:

---

Thank you for having the honesty to admit that I was right on this point. It was Buzsaw who claimed that the stone was a single person.

---

No, he was right, in that it is the Person of God. A Person that also was a person. But only the person that was God could fill the bill. You are therefore severely, and totally wrong, in the extreme.

Since some insinuate that Daniel was written after the fact, here is some support that shows otherwise.Bible Query from Daniel Harvardhouse.com "Evidence No. 1: Documents written in 5th century BCE Egypt (~495 BCE TO ~402 BCE) reveal unique textual and linguistic styles from that era. These documents are called the Elephantine Papyri. By comparing the texts of the Elephantine Papyri to the texts of Daniel, scholars have concluded that the textual style of Daniel places the book within the era of the 5th century BCE. Even Naturalists accept that the style of writing would place the book of Daniel centuries earlier than the 2nd century BCE. However, Naturalists favor the 165 BCE date due to their bias.Common Sense Placement for DanielPerhaps the easiest way of understanding why Daniel was written about 530 BCE is by using the English language from another era. Have you ever read Chaucerian English (14th century - 700 years ago) or Miltonian English (17th century - 300 years ago)? Consider the following example from the 14th century written by Chaucer:But for to tellen yow of his array,
His hors were goode, but he was nat gay.
Of fustian he wered a gypon
Al bismotered with his habergeon,
For he was late ycome from his viage,
And wente for to doon his pilgrymage.Language changes over time. This is a true statement for English as it is for Aramaic and Hebrew. The style of writing and word usage date when the literature was written. Consider the following example from the 17th century written by Milton:When such musick sweet
Their hearts and ears did greet,
As never was by mortall finger strook,
Divinely-warbled voice
Answering the stringed noise,
As all their souls in blisfull rapture took:
The Air such pleasure loth to lose,
With thousand echo's still prolongs each heav'nly close.Many of the words take time to decipher for someone used to reading 21st century English. In the same way, the Aramaic found in the book of Daniel does not fit the era of 165 BCE.In support of this conclusion by analogy, Naturalists believe it is okay to place the initial six chapters of the book of Daniel as being written at an earlier time than 165 BCE. Since there is no prophecy in the initial six chapters, that is acceptable to Naturalists. However, the writing style for the entire book of Daniel requires that it be dated much earlier than 165 BCE. (Another indication of bias against the reality of prophecy).Finally, if you would like to get a better feel on why the book of Daniel does not fit in with the Dead Sea Scrolls era, take the time to watch a science fiction movie entitled, "Millennium." In this movie, a person comes to the 20th century from the 30th century to snatch away people who happen to be flying on an aircraft that is about to crash. The point of watching such a movie is to show how the person from the 30th century does not fit into the 20th century.Evidence No. 2: Another textual evidence that Daniel was written centuries before 165 BCE are the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls (written from 150 BCE to 50 CE). Scholarly comparison of the unique textual and linguistic styles support that Daniel was written centuries before the Dead Sea Scrolls. Dating Daniel to 165 BCE is not credible.Naturalist's views for dating the book of Daniel are based on false assumptions about prophecy. Since we can verify Daniel's prophetic ideas came true, then Daniel's words appear to come from outside time-space. The date for writing the book of Daniel must be pushed back to match the text and linguistic style of the 5th century BCE.Evidence No. 3: Jesus called Daniel a prophet. " . spoken of through Daniel the prophet (Matthew 24:15 [NASB]).Daniel foretold of the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened to occur in 70 CE (about 235 years after the modern scholars date of 165 BCE, showing Daniel to be prophetic). There are many reasons why we would expect Jesus to foretell of the coming destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.* Reason No. 1: Jesus claimed to be the Messiah foretold by the prophets (including Daniel).* Reason No. 2: According to Daniel 9:26, the Messiah would be killed at Jerusalem some time before the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem were to occur. Jesus walked inside and taught people within the temple courts.* Reason No. 3: Jesus knew and understood Daniel as a prophet. Since Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, Jesus expected both the temple and Jerusalem to be destroyed after his time on earth. Daniel foretold these events. Jesus accepted Daniel as a prophet and carried through with the prophecy.* Reason No. 4: Jesus' followers knew of his prophecies about the coming destruction of Jerusalem and wrote Jesus' words into the gospel accounts.* Reason No. 5: In the book of Acts, the first Christian martyr named Stephen was accused of telling about Jerusalem's coming destruction, "For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place" (Acts 6:14). The book of Acts shows that early Christians expected the temple and Jerusalem to be destroyed (this expectation was commonplace).Both the message of Daniel's 70-weeks prophecy and the words of Jesus foretold that Jerusalem would be destroyed. Based on Jesus' claim to being the Messiah, it would be expected of him to foretell the coming destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.Evidence No. 4: Josephus called Daniel, ". . . one of the greatest of the prophets [Antiquities Book 10, Chapter 11, paragraph 7 Search for "GREATEST OF THE PROPHETS on the linked site"] because Daniel's prophecies are "time-oriented" and reveal "WHEN" future events would occur. Why did Josephus hold such a high view of Daniel?Since Josephus lived in the years 37 to 100 CE, he is closer to reality than modern scholars, who are more than 2,000 years removed from the biblical culture. Since the study of Daniel shows that modern scholars are biased against the reality of prophecy at the 98.5% confidence level, Josephus' view of Daniel appears to be correct.Evidence No. 5: Dead Sea Scrolls community members referred to . . . Daniel the Prophet (book entitled "Florilegium" or commentary). Eight copies of Daniel were found at the Qumran community with one copy dated to 125 BCE using carbon dating techniques. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Daniel was written in 165 BCE. Would people living in 165 BCE accept Daniel as a prophet if Daniel was written at that time?Evidence No. 6: Scholarly remarks about the Dead Sea Scrolls community accepting Daniel as a prophet. Some modern-day scholars find it incredible that if Daniel were indeed written in 165 BCE, the Dead Sea Scroll community would have accepted Daniel as a prophet. Again, the Naturalist views are questionable based on their doubts about Daniel being accepted as a prophet after only 40 years. Would Daniel be renowned as a prophet if it were known that he had lived a mere 40 years earlier? In that event, he would have been a contemporary person writing fiction. Refer to "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible" translated and with commentary by Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich, dated 1999, page 484.Evidence No. 7: Internal textual evidence that compares the book of Daniel to the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls are known to have been written in the era of 170 BCE to 50 CE. There is a definitive textual style and linguistics for this era. However, the textual style and linguistics for the book of Daniel are very different. Both conservative and liberal scholars acknowledge that the textual style and linguistics for the book of Daniel supports that it was written centuries before the Dead Sea Scrolls community came to exist. Naturalists override this evidence due to their bias against the reality of prophecy.Evidence No. 8: Jesus' life meets Daniel's prophecy about a Messiah that would be killed. Jesus fulfilled Daniel's prophecy by being crucified (supported by numerous sources). Based on Daniel, after the Messiah's death, Jerusalem and the temple were to be destroyed. It is apparent that Jesus knew and understood the book of Daniel. It would only be expected that Jesus would foretell of the temple and Jerusalem's destruction. Christians accept all these facts as the basis for believing Jesus fulfilled Daniel's "time-oriented" prophecy. It would be expected that Jesus would foretell of the temple and Jerusalem's destruction before those events were to occur."

quote:

---

Yes, if you claim Greece is anything more than the belly an thighs of the image, you do. A belly and thighs that were to be followed by another kingdom. Another kingdom that would be here when God takes over.

---

Of course that only follows if you ASSUME that the prophecy must come true. Without that assumption there is no requirement to "extend" the Hellenisitc kingdoms past their historical dates.

quote:

---

Having some local fulfillments to prophesy never preclude the ultimate fulfillments. The key to knowing where the one gets off, and the other starts, is context, and balance, and the rest of the book. Something you sorely lack the ability to deal with.

---

On the contrary, the context supports my case. What I do NOT do is assume that your beliefs take priority over the text of the Bible. That is what you complain about.

quote:

---

Nonsense!!!! There is only One that was to come to save mankind, and make things right again, and that Lamb of God was looked forward to from the getgo.

---

Even assuming orthodox Christian, beleifs that would be The Messiah. However that does not rule out the existence of other messiahs because that require denying what the Bible says.

quote:

---

Calling a king of this world a messiah, is really a misapplication of the term. Anointed is anointed, and saving mankind is saving mankind, and paving the way back to God. All things are not equal.

---

Being a messiah is being anointed, not saving the world. That is what the Hebrew word, whether translated as "anointed" or transliterated as "messiah" means.As I say, if you wish to read anything more than being a messiah (that is being God's anointed) into Isaiah 45:1, that is your problem. It is not a part of my argument.

quote:

---

His birth place, virgin birth, and a lot of other details are given, right on up to the manner of death. To declare Him otherwise is nothing short of an admission of gross ignorance.

---

On the contrary, we don't know where Jesus was born, there is no prophecy of a virgin birth and most of the other details are taken from texts that are not even prophecies, let alone messianic.

quote:

---

No, he was right, in that it is the Person of God. A Person that also was a person. But only the person that was God could fill the bill. You are therefore severely, and totally wrong, in the extreme.

---

I should have known that it wouldn't last. The stone is not stated to be God or any person. The Bible does not say that it is anything other than the Kingdom of God. Why would a stone, cut out of a mountain without hands describe God, rather than a kingdom formed by God's divine action ?

quote:

---

Of course that only follows if you ASSUME that the prophecy must come true. Without that assumption there is no requirement to "extend" the Hellenisitc kingdoms past their historical dates.

---

Or, if one assumes that the Greco Macedonian empire had it's time, and is no more, as was written!! Sometimes the obvious helps. Why assume otherwise?

quote:

---

On the contrary, the context supports my case. What I do NOT do is assume that your beliefs take priority over the text of the Bible. That is what you complain about.

---

Which beliefs!!??? That Cyrus is ruled out a having a snowball's chance in hell of being the Messiah? That Greece simply will not be here in a ruling way, or Alexander, when Jesus takes over? You must be kidding.

quote:

---

Even assuming orthodox Christian, beleifs that would be The Messiah. However that does not rule out the existence of other messiahs because that require denying what the Bible says.

---

Maybe if you are talking about false messiahs, they are foretold to be here a plenty. But trying to call some dead historical peon a Messiah, in any real sense of the word is an exercise in absurdity squared.

quote:

---

Being a messiah is being anointed, not saving the world. That is what the Hebrew word, whether translated as "anointed" or transliterated as "messiah" means.

​

As I say, if you wish to read anything more than being a messiah (that is being God's anointed) into Isaiah 45:1, that is your problem. It is not a part of my argument.

---

Anointed for what, that is the qiestion?! Only One is THE Anointed. Only One Is God with us. Only One was to defeat death, and not see corruption. Only One could fulfill the prophesies of that One. Cyrus is not a contender, not even in the race. Work on that.

quote:

---

On the contrary, we don't know where Jesus was born, there is no prophecy of a virgin birth and most of the other details are taken from texts that are not even prophecies, let alone messianic.

---

Isa 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."Definition1. virgin, young woman
1. of marriageable age
2. maid or newly married ++++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. "
Interlinear Search for '' - NAS with the BHS and NA26 - StudyLight.org" even Rashi said the word ALMAH in Song of Solomon 1:3 and 6:8 means virgin!"
Is Isaiah 7:14 about Hezekiah or Jesus?

quote:

---

I should have known that it wouldn't last. The stone is not stated to be God or any person. The Bible does not say that it is anything other than the Kingdom of God. Why would a stone, cut out of a mountain without hands describe God, rather than a kingdom formed by God's divine action ?

---

The stone is cut out without hands, so it has nothing to do with being made by man.By the way, Jesus is the rock, and stone and that is almost His nickname. Ever heard 'Rock of Ages'!!!??

quote:

---

1. No mention of the Book of Daniel at all until the mid 2nd century BCE
1) - Support for this claim?

---

Are you being serious?How can I prove a negative?Here’s the logic for you. There was a time when there was no Jewish literature, and then there was Jewish literature. Of all the Jewish literature we have there is no mention of the Book of Daniel until the mid-2nd century BCE. That is the argument, and, since it is falsifiable, all you have to do is provide one piece of literature from before the mid-second century BCE and you have proven my argument incorrect.Look at it this way, if there are NO mentions of Daniel’s book before the mid-2nd century BCE, how can I show you them?We go with the evidence we have, not the evidence we don’t have. Now, in the future there may well be evidence of Daniel’s book being mentioned before the mid-2nd century BCE but at the moment there are none.So, let’s see you provide something of substance for a change and provide a piece of evidence that The Book of Daniel was mentioned before the 2nd century BCE.

quote:

---

2. No texts in existence that date any older then the mid-2nd century BCE.
Support for this claim? Says WHO?

---

Anyone who has a clue about biblical studies knows that the Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest biblical texts we have.I have asked you 8 or 9 times for the date of the oldest existing text of Daniel and your persistent childish refusal says a great deal about your character.Let’s try again shall we?What is the oldest extant text of the Book of Daniel?Once you have dealt with these two issues we can move on to the other two, we don't want to overload that superbrain of yours do we?