Jeffro I state the following to you.
Nearly all of the Bible commentaries I have are ones I obtained while I was still a JW (though after I began greatly questioning WT teachings on the Bible. I refer to commentaries on the Bible to discover the meaning that the writers of the Bible meant to convey in what they wrote in the Bible. I want to know what the Bible's intended meaning is for each verse I am studying. After I discern that meaning I then ask myself if the Bible writers are correct in what they said, and at that stage I then investigate what atheistic scholars and nonreligious scientists and secular historians say on those topics. I don't look for flaws in a book before I learn what the book is trying to convey. If I mentally attack a book by looking for flaws in the book before understanding the book, I will likely in many cases be attacking a straw man idea of the book. Erecting a straw man argument to attack and idea is a logical fallacy and I wish to avoid making logical fallacies. I also refer to commentaries on the Bible verses because Bible commentaries are all about explaining Bible verses mean. Granted Bible commentaries are primarily written by people who believe in the Bible to at least some degree, and the vast majority of the commentaries I find are Christian ones (and most of those are Protestant ones, while some are ecumenical ones). It would be helpful if some atheistic scholars who write about Bible topics were to do so in the form of a commentary on the Bible so that people could more easily find the information. At least Isaac Asimov wrote a commentary on the Bible, but in it he says very little about the Seleucid period. His commentary doesn't cover the book of Daniel (or any biblical book) on a verse by verse basis for the entire book. Regarding the book of Daniel Asimov only comments on a small number of verses.
You wrote the following "nor to keep repeating information that has been posted on here for years. I have already linked to information about the book of Daniel in this thread". My reply to that is that I have not seen such information here. I didn't become very active on this until about two years ago, or so. As a result I know very little of what was written on this site prior to then. When I use the search engine feature of this site I notice it is of very little help to me. It is very hard for me find relevant posts on this site to what I am specifically looking for.
I did see your link about Christian tradition regarding the 70 weeks, but I didn't see (or at least I don't recall seeing) a link by you to information about the Seleucid period in regards to the book of Daniel. If I had seen such, I wouldn't have made the comments asking for you to document your assertions about the Seleucid period. Yes I know I can dig around the internet to see what atheistic scholars say about interpretations of the book of Daniel. But I was asking you to back up your claims because you (at least in my perception) kept urging readers to accept them and I saw very little offered by you in support of your claims. I was not alone in having this perception. scholar stated that he also had that same perception. There is a principle which says that the one making claims in an argument has the responsibility to prove his/her claims; that it not the responsibility of those who disagree with the claims to prove that the one making the claims is wrong.
Since you now saying you are not interested in persuading people to adopt your views, then I will stop asking you to back up the claims you made in this topic thread. I also might dig through all 45 pages of this topic thread so see if somewhere you "already linked to information about the book of Daniel in this thread". I also will probably try to find on the internet detailed documentation and argumentation (discussing the book on a verse by verse basis) in support of the idea that the visions in the book of Daniel pertain primarily to the Seleucid period. However, I think it will be very hard for me find such since atheistic writings are scarce in comparison to Christian writings. On the internet the number of Christian articles about biblical verses is several orders of magnitude greater than atheistic articles commenting on the same verses, thus making it hard to find the atheistic views on those verses.
Regarding your comment of "If you are willing to defer to supernatural ‘explanations’ for the author of Daniel supposedly having access to future events ... " I say the following. I defer to both religious interpretations and nonreligious interpretations. I am open minded as to my sources. I weigh the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. On many topics, including political topics, I weigh both pro and con arguments. For example, I do that regarding the following topics: creationism verses evolution (and evolutionism in general), pro-abortion verses pro-life, political conservative policies verses political liberal policies, supernaturalism versus atheistic naturalism, afterlife versus on afterlife, the idea of reality of no human caused climate change versus the idea of the reality of human caused climate change, ESP exists verse ESP does not exist, etc.
Furthermore, I was not claiming (or even saying it is possible) that the author of Daniel supposedly had access to future events by supernatural means. I was saying that the author of Daniel supposedly might have had access to future events by ESP means. ESP is the same as supernatural. In my view is that if ESP exists it is not something supernatural.
