Revisiting Daniel

[John317]

.... individuals as widely different in their viewpoints as Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther and John Calvin viewed Revelation with varying degrees of distaste and scepticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

Thomas Jefferson rejected any possibility of predictive prophecy, so I would be totally surprised if Jefferson had spent much serious time studying the books of Revelation or Daniel. He believed in God but not in a God such as as the Bible portrays. He was essentially a deist, a view that sees God as someone who is not personally involved in His creation.

On Deism:

Quote:

Deism is the belief that a supreme God exists and created the physical universe, and that religious truths can be arrived at by the application of reason alone, without dependence on revelation. It is in contrast with fideism, found in many forms of Christianity, Islamic and Judaic teachings, which holds that religious truths rely upon revelation in sacred scriptures and upon the testimony of other people as well as reasoning.

Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God has a plan for the universe, which he does not alter by intervening in the affairs of human life nor by suspending the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources. Deists believe that God's greatest gift to humanity is not religion, but the ability to reason.

About Revelation, Luther said, "We can profit by this book and make good use of it.... We can rest assured that neither force nor lies, neither wisdom nor holiness, neither tribulation nor suffering shall suppress Christendom, but it will gain the victory and conquer at last." (LW 35: 409).

Nevertheless, Luther had tunnel vision-- he couldn't see any use in anything that did not conform to his views of the doctrine of justification by faith. For instance, he dismissed the book of James and he didn't care much for Jude. Luther was a great man and I hold him in very high esteem, but it just goes to show you that everyone has limits.

Notice that your wikipedia article says "at first" Martin Luther had a low view of Revelation. Martin Luther changed a number his views, and this was one of them. Martin Luther was very temperamental person. Sometimes it depended on how he felt at any given moment. See his famous "table-talks." (Sometime he'd been drinking too much beer.)

Calvin did not reject the book of Revelation. He believed it belonged in the Canon and that it was inspired, but the truth is that Calvin didn't understand it. This becomes clear by studying a little bit about his life and writings. While Calvin didn't write a commentary on it, he did refer to it in his writings which showed that he considered it as part of Scripture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin

[John317]

On Thomas Jefferson's deistic views in relation to revelation by God--

Dumas Malone says the charge most often made against Jefferson was atheist: "it was not only made in the public press, it was hurled from pulpits in various places, most of all probably in Connecticut. ... Actually, he was a deist" (Jefferson and His Time, 3:481).

Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary (1952) includes in the definition of Deist: "One who believes in God but denies supernatural revelation." There is no question Jefferson rejected the Bible as divine revelation and rejected the divinity of Jesus. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson's appeal was to the God of the Deist, "Nature's God," not specifically to the God of Christianity (see letter dated Sep. 14, 1813, to Jefferson from John Adams equating "Nature's God" with "the revelation from nature").

[John317]

...When Clifford Goldstein identifies the fourth empire as that of Rome, he avoids addressing at all the very strong possibility that the writer of Daniel was in fact talking about the Seleucid Empire of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

On the basis of what the text itself says, please make your case that Daniel was speaking of Antiochus Epiphanes. What is the evidence?

[BobRyan]

Got an NIV or NASB study Bible?? -- apparently everybody on the planet seems to get that 4 empire sequence!

[John317]

Yes, I have many copies of it. Actually I have over 65 different translations of the NT and about 45 of the entire Bible.

My two favorite study Bibles are the Zondervan Study Bible (TNIV) and the Nelson Study Bible (NKJV).

The most accurate and faithful translation in terms of following the critical text is the Catholic translation, New American Bible.

After all that, though, my favorite is still the KJV.

[Michaelangelo]

Gee, guys, you're overwhelming me! I'm still trying to reply to posts on pages 2 and 3! :smile:

[John317]

Don't mean to. You take your time. No big hurry. You're doing OK. Don't mean to make you feel rushed.

[Michaelangelo]

Don't mean to. You take your time. No big hurry. You're doing OK. Don't mean to make you feel rushed.

It's okay, I'm not complaining; more like admiring! I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring your more recent posts.

[Michaelangelo]

Have you studied the Daniel & Revelation Committee Series published by the Biblical Research Institute, specifically (for our purposes) volume 2, Symposium On Daniel?

[Michaelangelo]

I believe that God knew what a great persecuting power Rome would be under the Caesars such as Nero and Diocletian. The prophecies themselves point this out. As it is, without the book of Daniel naming Rome as an evil empire, a number of the Roman Emperors attempted to destroy the Bible and kill as many Christians and Jews as possible. Imagine the consequences of having their Book describe and name Rome as an empire ruled by the devil.

[John317]

When it comes to the Fourth kingdom there is general agreement on the identity of it. In fact, the Jews and Christians both identified it as Rome. They also identified the second power as that of the Achaemenid Empire, or Medo-Persia. None of them thought that the second power was Media and the third Persia.

So it is simply not true that Daniel's not giving a name to the fourth kingdom is reason for not knowing which kingdom he was describing.

As far as the description of the "whole earth" is concerned, it should be obvious that "the whole earth" was the whole world of that day. Daniel did not know anything about North America or Australia or even India. He was concerned about the then known world.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I believe that God knew what a great persecuting power Rome would be under the Caesars such as Nero and Diocletian. The prophecies themselves point this out. As it is, without the book of Daniel naming Rome as an evil empire, a number of the Roman Emperors attempted to destroy the Bible and kill as many Christians and Jews as possible. Imagine the consequences of having their Book describe and name Rome as an empire ruled by the devil.

And again I ask why you would expect the Roman authorities would be incapable of interpreting the symbology in Daniel as referring to the Roman Empire?

You yourself have said that without a name attached to the Fourth Kingdom, it leaves room for doubt about its identity.

Do you have any evidence that officials of the Romans Empire knew or even studied the book of Daniel? Is there reason to believe that Roman officials were interested in learning what it taught?

I doubt they did. However, imagine if they discovered a clear reference to Rome as an evil power who would be overthrown by the God of the Jews and Christians. I tend to think they would not have been pleased. As it is, they attempted to kill off many Christians and destroy the New Testament. What would have happened if they had found texts of their holy books that attacked Rome-- we can only imagine the result.

[John317]

I don't know of any American leaders like Nero or Diocletian and some other Roman leaders I could name.

Have you read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? What would Rome do if you defied them?

Have you studied what happened when Jerusalem rebelled? Read Josephus. Perhaps you have. Then you must know what happened on the hills around Jerusalem in AD 70.

[John317]

I'm saying that most unbelievers don't spend a lot of time studying the Scriptures, and very few understand what it is saying even when they do study it. That is because spiritual things are spiritually discerned. It is not because of stupidity. It's the lack of the Holy Spirit.

But see Daniel 12: 10-- "None of the wicked shall understand." There's a reason for that.

[John317]

Then your answer is no. Predictive prophecy is not about a human making it seem to forecast anything. Predicative prophecy is making a genuine prediction on the basis of a prophetic utterance. You obviously do not believe it exists.

That would clearly make it difficult for you to accept the evidence that points to predictive prophecy. You would tend to reject it and try to explain it away at almost any cost. That's understandable, but it would be more helpful to you, in terms of seeing the truth, if you were more open minded about it.

Think of it this way: what if I were totally closed minded against the idea that the US sent a missile to the moon? I am sure you can see the problems I could make for myself trying to explain away the evidence. It is similar in some ways to the problems people make for themselves when they refuse to accept the possibility that there's such a thing as predictive prophecy.

I have accepted the possibility that there is no prophecy. I have accepted the possibility that there is no God. I am able to look at the world and at the Bible that way.

So I am merely suggesting that you at least not close your mind to the possibilities of predictive prophecy. Because when we close our minds to possibilities of that kind, we cut ourselves off from possible truths.

[John317]

There are all kinds of way of understanding this. But you would be tragically mistaken to believe that the only reasonable explanation is that there is no God or that the Bible is a made-up story.

The God of the Universe is not limiting Himself to human language. That would be like supposing we could reduce God to a laboratory experiment, thinking that we have Him finally in a bottle. How foolish. The words of the Bible are intended to give us some idea of God's relationship to mankind and to the world He made, but that idea is rather approximate and not precise.

[Michaelangelo]

Our oldest manuscripts of Daniel date from about the same period as our most ancient manuscripts of Isaiah as well as of most of the other Bible books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It's reasonable to conclude that the book of Daniel was composed long before it was included among the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts.

[John317]

[Michaelangelo]

Naming it clearly is obviously different than putting its identity in symbolic language that would require study in order to understand it.

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

By Greece I assume you to mean the Empire of Alexander, who more correctly was Macedonian rather than Greek.

Yes, you are technically correct.

How do the history books refer to it? It is quite true that Alexander himself was of Macedon, but he is known in history as a Greek king and his kingdom consisted of the ancient Greeks and is known in history as the Greek Empire.....

Yes, my point was very much a minor quibble. There is little I would disagree with in this post except that the term Greek Empire is rarely used by historians to refer either exclusively or particularly to Alexander's empire, in which Greek military influence became progressively less as Alexander moved further eastwards. It is used generally to refer to any of those classical imperial powers that had significant cultural Greek influence: Athenian, Macedonian, Seleucid, Antigonid, Plolemaic.

[Michaelangelo]

Originally Posted By: Michaelangelo

... If it is indeed correct to attribute the writing of Daniel to c. 167 BC during the persecutions of Israel by Antiochus IV then the actions and achievements of Antiochus IV Epiphanes at that time may well have led the writer to foreshadow greater things for the Seleucids than they realized.

I don't believe the weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that the book of Daniel was written at that time.

Antiochus Epiphanes doesn't come close to fulfilling the prophecy. His power was never greater than the Greek Empire, yet the book of Daniel says the fourth power would be "exceeding great" in comparison with that of the "very great" power of Greece. In comparison with Greece and the Roman Empire, Antiochus Epiphanes was insignficant. A representative of Rome came and forced Antiochus Epiphanes with withdraw. This alone is reason enough to conclude that Antiochus Eiphanes did not fulfill the prophecy of Daniel. But there is also the fact that no event connected with Antiochus fulfills the time period of Daniel 8: 14.

I was not trying to argue that Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel. I was arguing that, if Daniel was written pseudepigraphically around 167 BC, the fact that Antiochus failed to fulfil the prophecy is not evidence of the fact that the prophecy did not refer to what was expected of his future. Applying hindsight to identify an historical situation that in the light of our pre-existing assumptions appears to fit a prophecy is not evidence that the prophecy was in fact meant to apply to that historical situation.

[John317]

Quote:

For instance, I doubt any Roman officials studied the book of Revelation to discover what John's prophecies were all about. However, if he had named Rome, they would obviously have understood it in a moment.

JOHN3:17---My point is that if the Roman authorities had clear evidence that the Bible condemned the Roman government and Empire of being evil and that God was going to destroy it, the Roman authorities would have reacted differently. As it is, there were Roman leaders who tried to destroy it and Christianity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- There is no evidence that I'm aware of that the Roman government or Romans per se understood the book of Daniel.

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO-- But many Romans became Christians. Were they incapable of understanding Daniel?

Yes, certainly they could have. There's no reason to believe that the Roman Christian told the Roman authorities that the holy books of the Christians and the Jews taught that Rome was going to be destroyed by God. But if we suppose some Roman Christians became traitors and informed the government about the prophetic teachings, But if the book of Daniel and Revelation did not specifically name the Roman Empire, there would obviously be more protection against Roman persecution than if did name it. As you said before, if the name Rome does not appear in it, and if it is in symbols, there seems to be less certainty of what it means. This in itself is less of a provocation.

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- Do you know of any evidence that the Romans either studied it or knew anything of what it says?

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO-- Again, if they didn't study it, the concealment that requires symbolic language becomes irrelevant. If they did study it, they were as capable of understanding the references as anyone else if the references are as unmistakable as you suggest.

The point is that if it came to their attention that these books contained direct references to Rome as an evil power which would be destroyed by the Christian's and Jews' God, the Roman officials would more likely have looked into it. But there is no evidence that they did look into the books. As it is there were great persecutions of Christians and Jews by the Roman authorities at different times. My point is that direct and clear references to Rome would only have made things worse.

I disagree with you that the Roman authorities were just as capable of understanding the references to Rome in the books of Daniel and Revelation. When I give these books to non-Christians or to atheists, they do not understand them at all. They consider them foolish books, and do not see anything of importance in them.

However, there is evidence that both Christians and Jews were aware that the fourth kingdom referred to Rome. Josephus identified Rome as the fourth world kingdom in Daniel 2. (See Ant. X 208-10)

Quote:

MICHAELANGELO--This is not itself any evidence for the accuracy or correct understanding of Daniel’s prophecy, any more than the prevalence of a belief in geocentrism would be for arguing that the Sun orbits Earth. I expect you are aware of Porphyry’s 3rd Century AD skepticism about the authorship of Daniel and the validity of its claimed prophecies.

What it does show is that there is good evidence to believe that the symbols point to Rome. What other power does it point to?

Let's talk about that.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- You've probably read of, or heard of, Josephus' record of Alexander's the Great's understanding of the book of Daniel.

What do you think of the following?--

Josephus records that Alexander then accompanied the priest into Jerusalem and the temple, where he "offered sacrifice to God, according to the high priest's direction, and magnificently treated both the high priest and the priests."…. quote]

Quote:

In his masterful biography of Alexander, Alexander of Macedon (Pelican Books edition, Harmondsworth 1974), Peter Green notes that

…most of Josephus’ narrative concerning Alexander’s relations with the Jews clearly depends on legend rather than historical fact… (op. Cit., p.540, n. 14)

Because of this I would be reluctant to place too much credence in Josephus’ comments on this particular subject.

A person has to decide what he is going to believe. That's the reason for the exchange. You can choose to believe the Bible and Josephus, or you can believe Peter Green.

[BobRyan]

I was not trying to argue that Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel. I was arguing that, if Daniel was written pseudepigraphically around 167 BC, the fact that Antiochus failed to fulfil the prophecy is not evidence of the fact that the prophecy did not refer to what was expected of his future. Applying hindsight to identify an historical situation that in the light of our pre-existing assumptions appears to fit a prophecy is not evidence that the prophecy was in fact meant to apply to that historical situation.

As usual -- your logic is illusive on this point.

We have a scenario that works perfectly (so readily accessible that all can read it in the NIV study Bible and the NASB study Bible ) - which is Daniel writing in 6th century B.C identifying the 4 world empires that arise starting with Babylon - then Medo-Persia -- then Greece then Rome.

All grade school world history classes easily cover that sequence.

But the "proposal" is -- what if this is instead a 2 century unknown author writing about a failed prediction and getting everything all wrong so that nothing fits ...

How do you replace a solution where everything fits -- to one where nothing works out right as "the more probable scenario" UNLESS for some reason you are biased against having everything just work??

Makes no sense.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

I was not trying to argue that Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel. I was arguing that, if Daniel was written pseudepigraphically around 167 BC, the fact that Antiochus failed to fulfil the prophecy is not evidence of the fact that the prophecy did not refer to what was expected of his future. Applying hindsight to identify an historical situation that in the light of our pre-existing assumptions appears to fit a prophecy is not evidence that the prophecy was in fact meant to apply to that historical situation.

OK, you'll evidently admit, then, that Antiochus E. does not fulfill the prophecy of Daniel. I agree completely. But then let's examine the evidence and see if Rome does fulfill the prophecy-- or if you know of any other power that does fulfill it. (Of course I realize that you probably don't believe anyone does fulfill it.)

What evidence do you have that Daniel was speaking of Antichous Epiphanes? If he doesn't fulfill the prophecy, and Rome does fulfill the prophecy, why should anyone choose to say that Daniel was talking about Antiochus E., unless it's because they don't believe in prophecy?

You see, I do believe that prophecy is possible, which means that I am going to look and see if there is a fulfillment. If someone does not believe it is possible, they won't even be looking. In fact, they will be trying to discredit any fulfillment. That being the case, who is most likely to see a fulfillment if there is one-- the person who has an open mind, or the person whose mind is shut against the very possibility because they believe the Bible is full of lies?