He holds an M. Either the biblical prophets legitimately predicted the future, or they did not. And if they did not predict the future, then the prophets were either intentionally misrepresenting the future or were hopelessly delusional in thinking they could predict it. With so much at stake, then, it is no surprise that skeptics often target biblical prophecy. If they can prove just one part of one prediction false, then the inspiration of Scripture topples to the ground cf. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. Now some predictions are generic enough so as to present little problem for the skeptic. No specific description of this prophet occurs, and no chronological constraints are applied. Thus, we must rely on the New Testament to inform us that Jesus is indeed the prophet in question Acts ; Skeptics would allege the New Testament authors simply re-appropriated these words, which were never intended as a prophecy of Jesus.
Daniel , Book of. In the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and many other ancient and modern translations of Holy Writ, it comprises both its proto- and its deutero-canonical parts, which two sets of parts have an equal right to be considered as inspired, and to be included in a treatment of the Book of Daniel. As in the Vulgate nearly all the deutero-canonical portions of that prophetical writing form a kind of appendix to its proto-canonical contents in the Hebrew text, the present article will deal first with the Book of Daniel as it is found in the Hebrew Bible , and next, with its deutero-canonical portions.
The first includes a series of narratives which are told in the third person chaps.
But the two strongest pieces of evidence for a late dating come from: the O.T. apocryphal book ‘Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach’, written in Hebrew around .
This blog is the blog of the right Wrong. But there are many more wrong Wrongs. To be sure, Wrongs are legion. If you expected somewhat different content on this blog, it may be because you were looking for one of these Wrongs:. NT Wrong 2: author of the NT Commentary Reviews blog, which includes commentary on biblical commentaries [Update: blog no long available]. NT Wrong 3: author of the nt wrong blog, which purports to offer “occasional reports in biblical archaeology” in fact, very occasional: so far, only one.
NT Wrong 4: author of the all songs lead back t’ the sea blog, probably identical with NT Wrong 2 [Update: changed his name to Audiodictat]. This is a position reached by first examining the historical, theological and literary nature of the Book of Daniel. In other words, it is a conclusion, not an assumption. For instance, see this recent comment by Christian fundamentalist, Bob Burns, on a publicly accessible discussion group:.
Not surprisingly, Bob Burns fails to actually cite any scholars who he thinks carry out such an approach. It is not an assumption before research begins. The question is whether this possibility carries any probability : is it the most satisfactory way to explain what we find in Daniel?
It is no accident that the three most attacked books of the Bible are also the most significant Genesis, Daniel, and Revelation. It is commonly known that if the foundation is faulty, the building will soon fall. This article will seek to refute the view that the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC as many liberals claim and thus could not have been written by Daniel ca.
This being the case, the issue of the date of Daniel will be addressed first.
Conklin provides further support: ‘”If Daniel had been composed in second-century Aramaic, as the late-date theory maintains, then there should have been no.
By James M. They claim that this book was written for the purpose of encouraging Jews who were revolting against the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes IV, who was a savage Greek tyrant, intent on suppressing Israel. While modern critics hold to this perspective, there are a number of reasons for believing in the biblical authorship of Daniel:.
First, the book claims to be written by Daniel Dan. Second, Jesus Christ believed that Daniel was a prophet and the historical author of this book. He also believed Daniel predicted his future second coming accurately Mt. Neither option is viable for a Bible believer. Third, Ezekiel—a contemporary prophet—believed in a historical Daniel. Ezekiel lived in roughly BC, and he explains that Daniel is a real and historical figure Ezek.
To deal with this, higher critics have stated that Ezekiel is actually referring to an ancient Canaanite hero from their Pagan mythology. By contrast, Daniel—the son of Aqhat—from Pagan mythology was a Baal worshipper! Why would Ezekiel refer to this man as a hero of faith? In context, Ezekiel 14 denounces paganism and idolatry. Moreover, even critical scholars date Ezekiel very early.
It is no accident that the three most attacked books of the Bible are also the most significant Gen; Dan; Rev. It is commonly known that if the foundation is faulty, the building will soon fall. This article will seek to refute the view that the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC as many liberals claim and thus could not have been written by Daniel ca. This being the case, the issue of the date of Daniel will be addressed first.
One of the arguments put forth which seems to indicate a late date second century BC for Daniel is its place in the canon.
the early date. (a) HISTORICAL POINTS. a) Late.-With. Daniel’s activity the kings of Babylon, were, Nebuchadrezzar.
Canon, but in Eng. VSS it occurs as the fourth major composition in the prophetic writings, following the order of the Alexandrian canon. Historical background. The period of time covered by the historical and visionary sections of the book is slightly in excess of the full period of Heb. Daniel was apparently taken by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon along with other Judean hostages in b.
This would indicate that he was descended from a noble family, since normally only prominent persons were taken captive in this manner. According to the book, the attributive author was trained for service in the royal court, and it was not long before he gained an outstanding reputation as a seer and wise man. With divine help he was able to recall and interpret visions which other men had had, and subsequently he experienced several visions himself by which he was able to predict the future triumph of the Messianic kingdom.
The book covers the activities of Daniel under successive rulers including Belshazzar and Darius the Mede.
Recent scholarship has produced critics who labeled it as a fraudulent document that was forged by a second century B. However, the biblical evidence suggests that a historical Daniel who lived in the sixth century B. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the amazing prophecies he gave came to pass as God had shown him. Many conservative scholars are of the opinion that Daniel worshipper of God , the prophet, wrote the book that bears his name under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
It is Daniel’s detailed accuracy in his prophecies that has caused many critics to try to give a late date to the book of Daniel. That Daniel was.
The prophecies of the Book of Daniel have fascinated readers and created controversy for the past two thousand years. Evangelical Christians believe that the prophet Daniel, an official in the courts of Near-Eastern emperors in the sixth century BC, foretold the future of the world from his own time to the end of the age. Actually, the book was written in Palestine in the mid-second century BC by an author who expected God to set up his everlasting kingdom in his own near future, as we read in the mainline commentaries  and Bible dictionaries  :.
Seeing four immense beasts coming up out of the sea, Daniel becomes duly horrified. Now it is Daniel’s turn to seek enlightenment as to the meaning of the vision, as the pagans did of him in the earlier narratives of the book. An angel explains that the lion symbolizes the Babylonian kingdom; the bear, the Median; the leopard, the Persian; and the terrifying monster with the ten horns, the Hellenistic Seleucid.
Three of the horns are uprooted by a small horn which sprouts up and speaks arrogantly Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The Ancient One, symbol of God, appears in glory and judgment. The four beasts are slain, and finally everlasting dominion is given to “one in human likeness,” symbolizing the holy ones of the Most High, or the faithful Jews who had been devastated by the wicked Antiochus for three and a half years.
The accuracy of Gabriel’s mathematics is apparently of little concern, Daniel’s true interest being the last week of years, from the death of Onias III in B. The failure of his prediction refutes evangelical claims that the Bible is inerrant and prophecy proves its divine inspiration. The original purpose of the Book of Daniel was to comfort and encourage persecuted Jews during the Maccabean revolt.
It all began in December of BC, when the Seleucid emperor Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem with an idol bearing his likeness.
One of the more difficult questions for studying the book of Daniel is when the book was written. The answer to this question touches on the genre of Daniel and the clear prediction of historical events leading up to the Maccabean Revolt and possibly the Roman Empire in the first century. For some readers Daniel is predictive prophecy made by a historical figure.
The critic alleges that Daniel must fit within the early second century B.C. and not within the time period in which the book places itself: the late sixth century B.C.
T o many in the Western world, the Bible is an archaic book that holds little or no authority. It has come to represent at best the pious musings of superstitious people who lived far away and long ago. But the Bible claims God, not men or women, as its ultimate author. In its pages, God is ostensibly giving people of all eras instruction on the true nature of human existence and how life should be lived.
To those who are determined to discard the Bible, not much can be said to convince them that it truly is what it claims to be: the Word of God. But for those who may be undecided, the Bible does contain evidence of its divine origin.