Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast 540 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Jeffro

  Disillusioned JW:

  Daniel was probably speaking of eth[n]ic groups rather than kingdoms when he said "the Medes and the Persians".

  Probably. It is also possible that both were listed because both the Medes and the Persians (as Elam) were mentioned in Jeremiah’s list in chapter 25.

  it depends upon the purpose of of why Daniel wrote the prophecy
  

  There’s no evidence the author of Daniel wrote any ‘prophecies’ at all or that ‘prophecy’ (as distinct from predictions based on other methods such as speculation, trend analysis etc) is even possible. Though presented as ‘prophecy’, obvious references to the Seleucid period and the overall purpose of the book negate any need for any reliance on such superstitions. The purpose of setting the events in the Neo-Babylonian period and phrasing the stories as ‘prophecy’ helps reinforce the parallels between Babylonian and Syrian oppression.

  But, I noticed it is many pages long and I am not yet interested in reading all of the pages.

  No problem. Unlike ‘scholar’, I don’t imagine anyone is obligated to read anything in particular. In brief, the first few pages indicate early interpretations by various ‘church fathers’. More generally, if there were in fact any such calculations at the time that the ‘70 weeks’ pointed to the ‘messiah’ appearing some time around 30CE, you would reasonably expect to see it directly stated at least in Paul’s writings and the ‘gospels’. Instead, what we find is exactly what we would expect to see from a made-up history only loosely based on an actual person: almost no biographical details of Jesus from Paul, more detail from the author of Mark but no genealogy, fleshed out (but inconsistent) genealogies from the authors of Matthew and Luke, and more anecdotes about Jesus added by the author of John (noting that all of the ‘gospels’ are actually anonymous works that were only later traditionally accredited to the named authors).
  
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  When I wrote "Daniel wrote the prophecy" I don't necessarily mean it is an actual prophecy, But part of it is a prophecy in the sense it makes predictions (claiming to come from God) about the future, such as about God's kingdom becoming established and the resurrection of the dead, whether those predictions whether come true or not.] I was just referring to it as it is described. It is like saying "Spock said" or "Captain Kirk said" in reference to an episode of Star Trek. It is also like saying the "Gospel of Matthew" instead of the cumbersome wording of the "Gospel which is attributed as being according to Matthew". It also like saying "Jesus said" instead of saying "the biblical Jesus said" or "according to the Bible Jesus said".
  
• 

  Jeffro

  It’s unnecessary to call it a ‘prophecy’ in reference to its other exaggerated hypothetical claims when addressing aspects such as whether it talks about the Roman Empire. Doing so unnecessarily gives the impression of begging the question that it could plausibly be talking about the Roman Empire or any other events that were then future but are now history.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  There’s no evidence the author of Daniel wrote any ‘prophecies’ at all or that ‘prophecy’ (as distinct from predictions based on other methods such as speculation, trend analysis etc) is even possible. Though presented as ‘prophecy’, obvious references to the Seleucid period and the overall purpose of the book negate any need for any reliance on such superstitions. The purpose of setting the events in the Neo-Babylonian period and phrasing the stories as ‘prophecy’ helps reinforce the parallels between Babylonian and Syrian oppression

  --

  Nonsense. For indeed there is abundant evidence that Daniel was of the sixth century BC and not the 2nd century BC. Such internal evidence consists of nine chronological data that indicate the exact time when the prophet Daniel received his visions. The book apart from being prophetic is also historic in that it provides historical information pertaining to current and future World Powers and various Kingdoms such as the Ptolemaic Kingdom and the Seleucid Kingdom. These two kingdoms are described in Dan.11

  There is simply no evidence for a 2nd-century composition and you have failed to provide one fact or one line of evidence but simply a rehash of a prevailing hypothesis.

  Further, the book of Daniel employs futuristic language in 12 verses from Dan. 2:29 to Dan 12:9 which is consistent with a prophetic genre.

  Apart from internal evidence, there is external evidence that proves its 6th-century composition rather than a 2nd-century composition such as textual tradition, linguistics etc

  ---

  scholar JW

  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  🤦‍♂️

  The movie Troy identifies specific events in the 13th century BCE. (It is intentional to the analogy that the events of the Trojan War are actually not completely historical.) According to ‘scholar’ ‘logic’, this proves beyond any doubt that the film was definitely made in the 13th century BCE.

  (Of course, it’s actually worse than that for ‘scholar’ because Daniel inarguably refers to specific events in the 2nd century BCE, and his appeal to magical thinking is pathetic.)
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  Apart from internal evidence, there is external evidence that proves its 6th-century composition rather than a 2nd-century composition such as textual tradition, linguistics etc

  Forsooth, tis goodly reckoned. I can’t possibly think of how something written later could use some older words. 🤦‍♂️
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Stop the posturing and grandstanding for you fool no one. Just get on with it and provide one simple fact that proves the 2nd century BC composition of Daniel's prophecy.

  Get cracking!!!

  scholar JW
• 

  ozziepost

  Up and at ‘em ! 🤪

  👋
• 

  Jeffro

  'scholar':

  Stop the posturing and grandstanding for you fool no one. Just get on with it and provide one simple fact that proves the 2nd century BC composition of Daniel's prophecy.

  I have no need for "posturing" or "grandstanding". I have already clearly indicated that the presence of clear references to the Seleucid period is sufficient to establish the time of writing, without even needing to get into other specifics of Greek and Persian loanwords in the text and errors that a person during the Neo-Babylonian period wouldn't make.
  

  Justify your assumptions or just go away, 'scholar'. 😒 (You previously attempted to dismiss your burden of proof with an irrelevant ad hominem claim about atheism. I'm not entirely convinced that you can do better than that, but I am hopeful.)
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Jeffro, I don't recall you providing documentation showing how the verses of Daniel accurately matter he Seleucid period, though you urge us to accept that Daniel is about the Seleucid period. Perhaps you have studied the history of the Seleucids, but I know virtually nothing about the Seleucids (though I took a college course in ancient world history, which included content about the Greeks) and I suspect that other readers (at least those who think the book was written in the 6th century or possibly written then) on this topic thread also know nearly nothing about them. Except for a few cases I thus don't see what you call "obvious references to the Seleucid period", so please document to me and others (including scholar) evidence of the alleged obviousness to the Seleucid period.

  Making assertions, even repeatedly, without documentation/proof does not sway me to abandon my long held views and become convinced in the assertions. I need evidence instead. I have some evidence in some of the commentary books I own, but I it is not very detailed on a verse by verse basis. Furthermore, those same commentaries also say some of the verses do not fit well the Seleucids and they say some of the verses might refer to Rome.
  

  I am much more familiar with the Roman empire than with the Seleucid kingdom. If you wish to convince me and others 100% that Daniel refers to the Seleucid period and that none of it refers to the Rome (or the Roman empire) or has no similarity to the Roman empire, please refer us to a commentary which interprets Daniel verse by verse as having reference to the Seleucids and no reference to Rome.

  From what I learned about the Roman Empire (from movies, scholarly documentaries, and history books) the Roman Empire fits extremely well the description in Daniel 2:40 about the 4th kingdom.