Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/15/2003 4:13:25 PM EDT
This was over at another forum. I wondered if there was anyone that had the answer to this?? About some proof that Daniel was written 200 yrs bce. That it was written much later than the events took place. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by MCWAY: The reasons for Daniel writing the book in 6th century B.C. have also been explained and sourced. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry, I missed your answer to my question about what evidence exists that shows a book of Daniel existing anytime before the 2nd Century BCE. Any references contemporaneous to that time? Yes? No? Tell the truth: I missed it because you didn't provide any, right? And you provided no evidence because there is none. ==============================================
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 4:49:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/15/2003 4:50:25 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
I guess they are refering to this: [url]http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/4/984bad.html[/url] [url]http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/5/985good.html[/url] Thing is, since everything was passed orally or, if written, copied by hand, all this proves is that the Book of Daniel we have TODAY is newer than 200BCE. It could easily be a reconstruction, with certain details lost or misplaced, of earlier works or oral history that does preserve a 6th century BCE work.
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 9:29:58 PM EDT
Jewish scribes were held to the strictest standards in copying the Scriptures. There could be no mistakes made or tolerated. The Scripture teaches that God the Holy Spirit moved (inspired) men to write the Bible; therefore, it is accurate. See II Timothy 3:16.
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 11:30:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By UPD415: Jewish scribes were held to the strictest standards in copying the Scriptures. There could be no mistakes made or tolerated. The Scripture teaches that God the Holy Spirit moved (inspired) men to write the Bible; therefore, it is accurate. See II Timothy 3:16.
View Quote
The errors could of been in the CHRISTIAN era too you know. And no human being is perfect.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 2:20:56 AM EDT
What I am saying is that in the original language especially, there could not and was not any error. You are absolutely correct to say that no human is perfect but if the Holy Spirit wrote the Scriptures (using men) then He could enable the scribes and/or translators to copy the Scriptures accurately which is what I believe. Now I do believe there are major problems with the so-called modern translations such as the NIV or Living Bible (paraphrase). I believe these are travesties. I, myself, will only use the KJV or NKJV which I believe to be accurate.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 4:20:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/16/2003 4:21:56 AM EDT by martinmayhem]
The reason for trying to put a late date on the book of Daniel is to place doubt on the prophecies that have been written in the book. It's been several years since I have studied the book of Daniel in depth, so I can't list all of my reasons for why I believe in an early manuscript. One point is certain though, the book of Daniel was translated into Greek several hundred years before the birth of Jesus. Jesus himself recited passages from the Septuigent. All of these prophecies that are contained in our current Bible were most definately in place at the time of this translation. Therefore prophecies such as the famous 70 weeks concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the presentation of Christ as the Messiah, and His subsequent death were in black and white hundreds of years before they happened. edited to fix my spelling problems.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 7:53:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By UPD415: Jewish scribes were held to the strictest standards in copying the Scriptures. There could be no mistakes made or tolerated. The Scripture teaches that God the Holy Spirit moved (inspired) men to write the Bible; therefore, it is accurate. See II Timothy 3:16.
View Quote
Not quite true. The idea that the scriptures were divinely inspired developed over the centuries. In the early days of the Torah, they were the story of the Hebrew people; their covenant with God, their patriarch, their enslavement by the pharaoh.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 10:44:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By UPD415: Jewish scribes were held to the strictest standards in copying the Scriptures. There could be no mistakes made or tolerated. The Scripture teaches that God the Holy Spirit moved (inspired) men to write the Bible; therefore, it is accurate. See II Timothy 3:16.
View Quote
why? because circular reasoning never goes out of style. in other words: 'for evidence about the authenticity of the bible, see the bible.' [:P]
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 10:51:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sirensong:
Originally Posted By UPD415: Jewish scribes were held to the strictest standards in copying the Scriptures. There could be no mistakes made or tolerated. The Scripture teaches that God the Holy Spirit moved (inspired) men to write the Bible; therefore, it is accurate. See II Timothy 3:16.
View Quote
why? because circular reasoning never goes out of style. in other words: 'for evidence about the authenticity of the bible, see the bible.' [:P]
View Quote
No, it is not circular reasoning. It is faith. When speaking of Biblical issues, those that do not believe in the accuracy of the Bible will not be convinced. Those of us like myself, UPD415, and many others on this board, [u]do[/u] believe in the accuracy of the scriptures by faith. If you don't, that's fine with me. I'm not going to give you any grief about it. Believe whatever you want too. But I don't see what purpose it serves for you to ridicule those of us that do believe.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 10:57:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By UPD415: What I am saying is that in the original language especially, there could not and was not any error. You are absolutely correct to say that no human is perfect but if the Holy Spirit wrote the Scriptures (using men) then He could enable the scribes and/or translators to copy the Scriptures accurately which is what I believe. Now I do believe there are major problems with the so-called modern translations such as the NIV or Living Bible (paraphrase). I believe these are travesties. I, myself, will only use the [b]KJV[/b] or NKJV which I believe to be accurate.
View Quote
Right...the King James Version is probably closest to the original scrolls.[:\] The Jewish scribes [b]re[/b]wrote it for the 'others'. I'm not implyinhg that they may have revised it or anything.... [BD]
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 12:18:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/16/2003 12:19:31 PM EDT by ep_shooter]
For those who are interested: Per the Catholic Encylopedia concerning the LXX: "It is not possible to determine accurately the precise time or the occasions on which these different translations were made; but it is certain that the Law, the Prophets, and at least part of the other books, that is, the hagiographies, existed in Greek before the year 130 B.C., as appears from the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, which does not date later than that year." The oldest mss of the LXX date from the 4th century AD, same source: "The three most celebrated manuscripts of the Septuagint known are the Vatican, "Codex Vaticanus" (fourth century); the Alexandrian, "Codex Alexandrinus" (fifth century), now in the British Museum, London; and that of Sinai, "Codex Sinaiticus" (fourth century), found by Tischendorf in the convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai, in 1844 and 1849, now part at Leipzig and in part in St. Petersburg; they are all written in uncials." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm Although this sets an end date (latest it could have been written), it doesn't established when the book of Daniel actually was written. The biggest problem is that all these sources form a series of dominos (i.e. Daniel was written before the LXX, but when was the LXX translation done? etc.) Once again the CE concerning when Daniel was written: "Over against this time-honoured position which ascribes to Daniel the authorship of the book which bears his name, and admits 570-536 B.C. as its date of composition, stands a comparatively recent theory which has been widely accepted by contemporary scholars. Chiefly on the basis of historical and linguistic grounds, this rival theory refers the origin of the Book of Daniel, in its present form, to a later writer and period. It regards that apocalyptic writing as the work of an unknown author who composed it during the period of the Machabees, and more precisely in the time of Antiochus IV, Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.)" Was the book written by Daniel or by a psuedo-Daniel at a later time period? Or has the original book of Daniel been "edited" by a later scribe? Depends on "faith". If a "prophet" can't possibly "predict" the future, then the book "must" have been written after the events described, which necessitates a later date. What ones believes ("faith") dictates how one will interpret the data, in this case.
Top Top