|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Date: 5/10/2002 10:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 25390
I have no idea, my bible's packed up right now. I don't know also, because to me, it's not a necessary fact of life.  Makin us think at midnight, Six Gun.....it's not fair!! hehehe  |
Date: 5/10/2002 10:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 11348
ummmm 2046  |
Date: 5/10/2002 10:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
AND knowing this applies to salvation how???  |
|
Date: 5/10/2002 10:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Hi Six Gun..I do believe there are some disagreements as to when the book of Daniel was written..Some claims it was written in the 6th century and yet some claims it was written many centuries after Daniel's time, during the Maccabean revolt against the Greek occupying forces in 168-164 BCE..I do not agree with the latter claim,for the simple fact that Daniel identifies himself as being the speaker in many passages and Jesus identifies Daniel as being the author. Daniel 7:1 "Then he wrote down the dream, and here his account begins." Daniel 7  8 "as for me, Daniel, my thoughts dismayed me greatly.." Daniel 8:1 "a vision appeared to me, Daniel, following my earlier vision." Daniel 9 : "I,Daniel,was reading the scriptures" Daniel 10 "At that time I, Daniel, mourned for thee whole weeks." Daniel 12:5 "I, Daniel, looked and saw two others standing." Jesus verified that the book was written by Daniel in Matthew 24:15,He states,"So,when you see the "abomination of desolation," of which the prophet Daniel spoke, standing in the holy place..then those who are in Judea must take to the hills."..Hope this helps.. ((hugs))  |
Date: 5/10/2002 10:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
oh i know uh the year 2 billion BC lol there is no book of daniel i dont think  |
Date: 5/10/2002 10:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 28125
According to the text of the book of Daniel it belongs to the 6th Century BC...most scholars believe or opt for the 2nd Century BC...probably the 2nd Century BC...I got this out of a book entitled, "Zondervan Handbook to the Bible"...check it out...Love and Hugs...ICL~*~*~*~  |
Date: 5/10/2002 11:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
Nice answer, Rusure. I don't think I can add anything to this question, other than the later date normally comes from scholars who do NOT believe the intricate prophecies were written before the fact ..... (just a bit biased now, aren't they?) :P  |
Date: 5/11/2002 7:17:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
Rushure, parinoid.....I agree but yes, there are those that say that Rushure and I was wanting to see if any here at USM believed that.  |
Date: 5/11/2002 2:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Hi Six Gun..That's not so,but perhaps we should get together to give a quiz to see just how well others do know the Bible.  ..Don't know exactly how we can work this one out though,seeing we ourselves don't always agree on the matter of what God's Word teaches. Don't let what some others may think bother ya Six Gun..They have no tangible proof.. Taking advantage of this one. This is the type of judgment God speaks of when He says, "Judge not,lest ye be judged"  |
Date: 5/11/2002 2:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
Paranoid, that is not the only reason why and to present it as such is misleading (whether intentional or otherwise) Here is some basic information I know about the book of Daniel. (yes I have cut and pasted here, not to regurgitate anothers argument without understanding, but rather because my time is limited, and this is stated well, which saves me time): "Various reasons have been given for rejecting the traditional view that Daniel was written by a 6th-century Jew who was an official in the royal court of Babylon when the events in the book were allegedly happening. Among these reasons are some that scholars don't agree on. For example, some scholars think that the late authorship of Daniel was betrayed by its use of Persian and Greek words that would not have been known by 6th-century residents of Babylon, but other scholars see no particular value in this argument. Some scholars think that the literary style of the Aramaic part of Daniel was the type that was used later than the 6th-century B. C., but others disagree. Some scholars think that Daniel's use of the word Chaldean to represent a caste of wise men, astrologers, and magicians rather than a nationality indicates a late authorship, because the word was not generally used in this sense in the 6th century, but others see no particular force to this argument. In other words, on several rather minor points used to date the book, scholars obviously disagree."  |
|
Date: 5/11/2002 2:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
On these major points, there is general agreement that they indicate that this book was not written by a 6th-century official in the Babylonian court. These reasons can be summarized by a single expression: bad history. The writer demonstrated an ignorance of 6th-century Babylonian history that would not be expected of someone with the wisdom and political position that the book attributed to Daniel, who identified himself in several places as the author (7, 15; 8:1ff; 9; 10; etc). |
|
Date: 5/11/2002 3:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
Belshazzar's Father: We know from Babylonian records that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon. The book of Daniel presented Belshazzar as the Babylonian king at the time of the empire's conquest, but I won't quarrel over this, because even though Babylonian records never called him king, they indicate that Belshazzar may have served as co-regent during his father's absence from Babylon. There is, however, reason to quarrel with Daniel's references to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar's "father" and to Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar's "son." See Dan. 5:1-23 which shows that Daniel did indeed think that Nebuchadnezzar was the father of Belshazzar. |
|
Date: 5/11/2002 3:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
According to the first part of this book, Daniel rose to prominence in the Babylonian court during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. This happened as a result of Daniel's interpretation of a dream that Nebuchadnezzar's wise men were unable to interpret but which for Daniel, of course, was a snap to decipher because Yahweh was his god (2:12-45). As a result, Daniel was made "ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon" (2:48). If Daniel achieved such prominence in Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom, he would have surely been familiar with the king's family, but in chapter five, the writer of this story referred to Nebuchadnezzar five times as the "father" of Belshazzar. One of these references was made by the writer himself in the narration of the story, two of the references were attributed to the queen, one of them to Belshazzar himself, and the fifth to Daniel as he addressed the king. In this address to the king, Daniel also referred to Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar's "son," so in less than one chapter, six incorrect references were made to Belshazzar's relationship to Nebuchadnezzar. How likely is it that a writer whom Nebuchadnezzar had made ruler over the whole province of Babylon and the chief prefect of all the wise men in Babylon would have repeatedly made a mistake like this? |
|
Date: 5/11/2002 3:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
The writer of Daniel claimed that he and others were taken captive in Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the "third year of the reign of Jehoiakim" and carried away to Babylon (1:1-3), where he was selected to be educated in "the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans" (v:4). Jehoiakim was king of Judah from 609 to 598 B. C. (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, 1987, p. 559), so if Nebuchadnezzar took him captive in the "third year of Jehoiakim," this would have occurred in 606 B. C., which was a year before Nebuchadnezzar became king. From Babylonian records previously mentioned, we know that Nebuchadnezzar engaged the Egyptians under the command of Pharaoh Necho II and defeated them at Carchemish in 605. Later that year, his father died, and he succeeded to the throne. The next year he sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon for refusing to pay tribute to him, and from 604 to 601, he was kept busy securing the Egyptian front. He suffered a setback in 601 at the hands of Pharaoh Hophra, but by 598, he had recovered sufficiently to lay siege to Jerusalem. The Bible records this siege (2 Kings 24:10), and says that it was at this time that captives from Jerusalem, along with treasures from the temple, were taken to Babylon (2 Kings 24:13-16). This siege of Jerusalem happened not in the third year of Jehoiakim but in his last year. The Bible is unclear about what happened to him, whether he was killed during the siege or captured and taken to Babylon. Jeremiah 22:19 predicted that he would be "buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem," but 2 Chronicles 36:6 claims that Nebuchadnezzar "bound him in fetters" and took him to Jerusalem. Second Kings 24:6 merely says that Jehoiakim "slept with his fathers and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead," after which the chapter describes Jehoiachin's surrender to Nebuchadnezzar, who then carried him, the royal family, and other "chief men of the land" to Babylon. So both biblical and Babylonian records indicate that Jerusalem fell to Nebuchadnezzar in the last year of Jehoiakim's reign and not in his third year as the writer of Daniel indicated. It seems rather strange that this man, who possessed all of the great wisdom claimed in this book, did not even know what year he was taken captive to Babylon. It's reasonable to think that someone living four centuries later could have been confused about when Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem and took captives back to Babylon, but it's hard to believe that one of these captives would not have known when it happened. |
|
Date: 5/11/2002 3:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
The Son of Ahasuerus: In 9:1, the writer of Daniel described the mysterious "Darius the Mede" as the "son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes," but Ahasuerus (better known as Xerxes) was the king of Persia from 485-465 B.C., so it isn't at all possible that "Darius the Mede," who allegedly reigned in Babylon in 539 B. C., was the son of someone who had not yet been born. Ahasuerus was the Persian king who allegedly made Esther his queen in the book named after this Jewish heroine. Since his father was Darius the Great, the writer of Daniel may have confused his Dariuses and anachronistically made a son of Darius the Great the king who had captured Babylon. At any rate, he made a historical mistake that would be understandable for an author writing four centuries later, but it is not a mistake that we could reasonably expect an important contemporary official of Babylon to make. |
|
Date: 5/11/2002 3:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
1) In 550 B. C., Cyrus conquered the kingdom of the Medes and made it a province or satrapy of the Persian empire. (2) In 539 B. C., Babylon fell to Cyrus, so by this time Media no longer existed. (3) Cyrus ruled in Babylon from 539-538 B. C. and then moved his residence to Ecbatana, a city in territory that Cyrus had taken in his conquest of Media. (4) The writer of Daniel clearly indicated that a "Darius the Mede" reigned in Babylon for at least one year between the reigns of Belshazzar and Cyrus the Persian, but by the time Daniel's mysterious "Darius the Mede" had finished his reign in Babylon and Cyrus had begun his, Cyrus (according to contemporary Persian records) had left Babylon and moved his official residence to Ecbatana. Who can believe that a high government official living in those times could have written a book that contained such historical inaccuracies as these? |
|
Date: 5/11/2002 3:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
Anyway Paranoid, these are just some of the reasons why a later date is ascribed to Daniel. There's more, but I doubt most people even read what I posted so far, so I'll stop now. |
Date: 5/11/2002 3:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
Karma, did you know that there was Daruis, Darius II and Darius III? Also, it was Artaxerxes who was aka Xerxes. Author, I'm very interested in knowing when Daniel was written, too. I'll check back =]  |
|
Date: 5/11/2002 3:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
PS: Daniel was not written in one year. |
|
Date: 5/11/2002 3:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
"but which for Daniel, of course, was a snap to decipher because Yahweh was his god" - Karma...."the later date normally comes from scholars who do NOT believe the intricate prophecies were written before the fact ..... (just a bit biased now, aren't they?)" - Paranoid. |
Date: 5/11/2002 3:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
I have NO clue, but now I have to read all the above answers. May I answer the question, with a question....? Does it matter? Does it change the content of the stories it contains..? Just wondering. Now, remember, I answered BEFORE I read the replies.  |
|
Date: 5/11/2002 3:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
Thanks for more info, Karma. I wasn't aware of some of these other reasons, but I knew a few of them. I DO know that the main reason I have heard/read is normally the detail which the prophecies contain leads many to believe that it was written at a much later date. At least from the sources I have found so far. I am, by no means, a scholar on the "when's" or the "who's-whos" which are found within the book of Daniel. There is a large time-frame contained within it, and it gets a bit complicated. |
|
Date: 5/11/2002 4:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
While I agree that it's complicated, wouldn't you agree, Paranoid, that Daniel SHOULD have known these things and the fact that he gets so much of the history wrong says SOMETHING? As I said, there's more, I'll be happy to post it if you like (and i have time). |
|
Date: 5/11/2002 5:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 52140
umm... my Bible says about 605 bc. Jerusalem was sieged and desecrated. Daniel was about 15 at the time. I would say between 605 and 580 b.c. Whats this for? JesusFreak  |
|
Date: 5/12/2002 4:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Hi KK..I do believe that the minor points which this writer states,amounts to nothing more than, "He said,she said" type of thing.. It is stated in the second comment,"There is general agreement among the scholars that the book was written by a 6th century offical". There are MANY who do not agree. There is NO general agreement among the scholars.There are many who do not believe that Daniel showed ignorance of 6th century Babylonian history. |
|
Date: 5/12/2002 4:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
I would like to point out a few facts which has obviously been overlooked..Eve is said to be "the mother of all". It is obvious that this does not mean that Eve is our birth parent..Abraham is called "the father of all" who are righteous. Again,it is obvious what this statement means. God calls the devil,the father of evil..The meaning of this is easily understood.. In John 8:44 Jesus said ,"Ye are of your father the devil"..Most do understand what Jesus is saying. In John 8:53,56,the Pharisees asked Jesus "Art thou greater than our father Abraham?" .In Dan 23, Daniel said "You are the God of my fathers"..Daniel is speaking of those who had followed God righteousness who followed God, before him..You can see that the word "father" is used in different ways.. Now,I could say "Meridia" is my father,when referring to my Native American bloodline,but he is not my actually birth father. Today we say,"our forefathers",but in the biblical times,they used the term 'father" not only to show the birth parent of one,but to show one who followed the teachings of another..If one followed a person who did unrighteousness,then anyone agreeing with,and following the teachings of that person was called, "the son of or father of that person", Since Belshazzar practiced and did the same unrighteousness of Nebuchadnezzar,he is referred to as "the son of Nebuchadnezzar".. |
|
Date: 5/12/2002 4:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Also, the Bible uses such phrases as the following to denote a follower or the ownership of,.... "the *seed of* righteousness" (those who do righteousness,also could be said to be the son of )..The *seed of* unrighteousness..(those who do unrighteousness,or the son of)..The *seed of* Abraham/David (lineage,or righteousness of,depending on the subject being discussed), "the *seed or children* of Babylon.. (those who did the things which made up the general characteristics of most in Babylon,the son of). In the examples of the author above,it is obvious that he did not take this into consideration. |
|
Date: 5/12/2002 4:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
As I read the following statement made by the author of your source, I can easily see that this author is not one that I would continue to have a dicussion with. He says "This happened as a result of Daniel's interpretation of a dream that Nebuchadnezzar's wise men were unable to interpret but which Daniel,OF COURSE,WAS A SNAP to decipher BECAUSE Yahweh was his god"..When someone makes such a statement,then I don't bother. This person shows he is not interested in considering all that is said,but he is only interested in putting down something which it is obvious that he does not have a good knownledge of,(proof shown above)..This author is close minded and will only consider what he has already concluded. His statements are not considered to be credible but one sided and I would refuse to discuss anything with him.. I will however continue to comment on what this author has written,since the writings of this person has been brought to our attention.I will need to look further into the acusations of this person, but I will do so with consideration given to all that is said regarding the subject at hand. |
Date: 5/12/2002 6:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 53850
HELLO MY NAME IS DEAN I STUDY THE WORD OF GOD,I JUST WANT TO THANK FOR ALL OF YOU THAT ARE IN THE WORD OF GOD,MAKEING ME FEEL WELCOME HERE,AND IM NEW AT THIS,AND HOPEING I BEABLE TO READ ALL YOU AND THOSE LETTER THEY HAVE WRITEN.ABOUT WHAT THE BIBLE SAY,OR IS IT TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT,AND WHAT ANSWER WOULD YOU GET FROM ME,AND THE WORD OF GOD SAY--SEE RO;3; 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. SO AGAIN I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU ALL MAKEING ME FEEL WELCOME DEAN SEE Acts,2;38  |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
