Aren't the prophecies of Daniel failed? Where is the kingdom of god? Instead of restoration of Jerusalem and Jews, exactly the opposite happened in the post exilic history. This shows that rhe Daniel is a false prophet. This is the main reason why book of Daniel is a fiction written in second century BC in additional to historical inaccuracies, linguistic problems and interpretive gymnastics it's defenders make.
Daniel didn't place calendar dates on the fulfillment of his prophecies.
You then attempt to preemptively discredit defenses of the 6C setting by calling them "interpretive gymnastics". That's a nice way for you to evade counterarguments.
We have a collection of posts on issues related to prophecy here, and many of those posts are about Daniel. Your vague, unsupported claims don't advance the discussion.
Given the absurdity of the late dating of Daniel, you're in no position to act as though the earlier dating involves gymnastics that you don't need to interact with. Even many non-conservative scholars date portions of the book earlier than the second century B.C. The book portrays itself as a work written prior to the Maccabean era, its contents make far more sense in an earlier timeframe, the manuscript evidence supports an earlier date, the earliest external testimony among a large diversity of individuals and groups universally supports an earlier dating, the Maccabean dating requires widespread acceptance of a book as scripture by independent groups at a time when its prophecies would have been easily known to be false, the Maccabean dating is still too early to explain some of the fulfillments of the book's prophecies, etc. Given what's at stake, many scholars (and others) don't want to acknowledge the early dating of the book, but the resistance to an earlier date is a ramshackle façade.
About two years ago, Carol Newsom published a commentary on Daniel (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014). John Collins, one of the foremost Daniel scholars of our day, calls Newsom's work "the first major commentary on Daniel of the twenty-first century" (front flap). Newsom's commentary is the most substantial recent commentary I'm aware of to adopt the late dating of Daniel. If you want to see some gymnastics, take a look at her reasoning in support of a late date. You can read my review of her commentary here.
It seems to me from the simple logic, as Roman empire falsified the prophecies of Daniel the book can not be genuine. The author of Daniel reflected upon the Maccabean victories and the death of Antiochus Epiphanes and created a future fictitious fourth kingdom and another little horn and hoped that the same situation will exist at the time of the end and in the same way god will help them at the time of the end. The author supplemented his previous material with his new chapters and interpolations.
Roman empire passed away and 70 weeks are over yet there is no kingdom of god. This is foremost reason behind Maccabean dating of Daniel. As to the linguistic issues, I agree with you that the language might be earlier after accounting for orthographic update and emergence of textual tradition. Given the close ties of the Jews with the Persian authorities, presence of Persian words in the Daniel is not surprising. Even Hebrew of Daniel can be earlier but it can not be as the evidence for early date of Daniel, for one can imitate the early language just like the author of Bensira imitated the early language. Language has no value in establishing the date.
As to the Historical issues, it appears from the presentation of the author of first 6 chapters, he wrote stories according to his own purposes rather than history. The author must have the knowledge of Nabonidus, for as long as there is a memory of Belshazzar it is highly probable that there is also a memory of Nabonidus. Yet the author presented Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnezzar. So these chapters must be fiction according to the author's theological purposes.
I am very glad to inform you that the Darius the Mede is identified with Cyaxares II by Steven Anderson in his Ph.D dissertation with much ease and persuasion and without any insurmountable difficulties.
So these are my counter-arguments. I am in no way committed to either late date of early date for my convenience. It is all the matter of evidence and testing it's claims. My question is in what way the Roman empire has not falsified the Daniel's prophecies?
Thank you for your replies, may be my tone was not that good in my previous comment, apologies.
If the book contains no false prophecy, it is genuine irrespective of linguistic and historical problems. They must be evaluated subject to the paradigm of authenticity of book. If the book contains a false prophecy or falsified prophecy, it is fake irrespective of early language and historical accuracy. This is simple logic.
What I am asking for is the fulfillment of prophecy in the history. Daniel said that the four kingdoms shall reign over Israel and then God's kingdom will be established which I would be very glad to join and serve. Babylon,Media&Persia,Greece and Rome came and gone. Where is the kingdom of god? This failure shows, according to the logic given above the book is not genuine to the impression it gives.
It is reasonable for prophecy to be a bit vogue, but if it too much vogue so that anybody can give his own interpretation for the prophecy, what is the value of the prophecy? You take the impression the author of our book gives about it's authorship at face value and trust it. Why don't you do the same with 70 weeks? Isn't it inconsistent? All the numbers given in the book are literal for example the 1330 days given in chapter 12 for the end time generation can not be understood symbolically.
In no way I uncritically accept the theories of liberal christian scholars. Liberal scholarship on Daniel is a house built on sand. The scholarship changes over time, house collapses and new house is built. For example, scholarship over unity of Daniel has collapsed and a new paradigm emerged. Liberal scholars are not correct on the issue of the four kingdoms of Daniel. Of course, it is not their fault. The book gives such an impression for a scholar. Scholar's reading of the text is simplistic. A simplistic reading of the text can not dig up any complexities in the text. There are two little horns and the third kingdom is Greece. Liberal scholar's formation of Median empire has no support in the text except in it's superficial impression and in vogue and incidental parallels between the fourth kingdom and Greece.
You haven't explained why we should think that a Christian view of Daniel's kingdom of God is wrong. Instead, you just assert that it's wrong, offer a weak response to some of the evidence for an earlier date for Daniel, and ignore the rest.
When you refer to how the language of Daniel "might be" or "can be" earlier than the Maccabean era, that's an insufficient response. Advocates of an earlier date for Daniel have produced evidence that the language probably, not just possibly, is earlier. See the relevant sections of the Daniel commentaries by Stephen Miller and Andrew Steinmann, for example. Saying that the author of Daniel was "imitating early language" isn't the best explanation for early language. We don't begin with a default assumption that language is something other than what it appears to be, written by a later source who had a highly unusual interest in and ability to imitate earlier language. You now tell us that "language has no value in establishing the date", even though you were the one who initiated the discussion of language with a reference to "linguistic problems".
You refer to how the author allegedly "reflected upon the Maccabean victories and the death of Antiochus Epiphanes" and "supplemented his previous material with his new chapters and interpolations". You make no effort to explain how such a process would produce the sort of textual, manuscript, and external evidence we see. I and others have already explained why views like yours are highly inconsistent with that evidence.
You write:
"If the book contains a false prophecy or falsified prophecy, it is fake irrespective of early language and historical accuracy."
What we're looking for is the best explanation of Daniel, which can involve tradeoffs. A view of the book could be worse at explaining a portion of the evidence, but be much better overall.
Since there's so much evidence for a pre-Maccabean dating of Daniel, and there's significant fulfillment of its prophecies after the Maccabean era, it would require evidence far more substantial than what you're citing here to justify dating the book to the Maccabean era. Defending a Christian view of Daniel's kingdom of God is far easier.
...but if it too much vogue so that anybody can give his own interpretation for the prophecy, what is the value of the prophecy?
Prophecy wasn't given primarily to convince skeptics, but to encourage believers, as well as eventually vindicating God at the end (i.e. at the eschaton).
I'm not committed to the following interpretations, but here are some ways the book of Daniel could be interpreted.
The kingdom of God has come and has been inaugurated with the establishment of the Church. The kingdom is initially a spiritual kingdom which will be established in all it's fullness (both spiritually and physically/visibly/governmentally) with the eventual the return of Christ. In the meantime, "the stone cut out without hands" (i.e. Christ the King, His Kingdom and it's citizens composed of the Church) grows to become a "great mountain" that slowly encompasses the earth per Postmillennialism.
34 As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.- Daniel 2:34-35
Compare Matt. 13:33
He told them another parable. "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened."- Matt. 13:33
The leaven is there, but hidden. Yet, it's effects gradually manifest throughout the dough.
The finishing of the transgression and the putting an end to sin (Dan. 9:24) may refer to God's anger and punishment toward the people of God ending at the coming of Christ.
1 Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. 2 Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins. 3 A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain. 5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."- Isa. 40:1-5
The "atoning for iniquity" (Dan. 9:24) may refer to Christ's sacrifice on the cross which forgives sin so that our spiritual debt is brought from a great negative in "the red" to zero. Then, the "bringing in of everlasting righteousness" (Dan. 9:24) may refer to how free and full justification (imputation of positive righteousness) is also available through faith in Christ who is our righteousness (Jer. 23:6; 1 Cor. 1:30).
The final Week might be split up into two 3 and 1/2 years. The first 3 and 1/2 years may represent Christ's earthly ministry where, by His atoning death, where He ends the need for further additional sacrifices and offerings (at the very least, they literally ended at the destruction of the Temple). While the 2nd 3 and 1/2 years being fulfilled in the years leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The approximately 40 year span from Christ's crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem possibly being the fulfillment of Christ's statement that all the thing He prophesied in the Olivet Discourse would be fulfilled before the generation of people who heard Him preach would die out (per Partial Preterism). The book of Revelation may be interpreted in a Partial Preterist way, possibly in combination with an Idealist way (and so) with repeated spiritual and earthly fulfillments down through history. There might also be a possible secondary falling away and secondary anti-Christ [with Nero being the first]. See, Kim Riddlebarger's works where he argues for an Amillennialist and Idealist interpretation of Revelation. He's open to combining a partial preterist interpretation with his Idealist Amillennial view. He has said that if preterism is true, it isn't the entire truth because there are further fulfillments. See also Postmillennialist literature by folks like Kenneth Gentry.
Jesus said, "Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits"- Matt. 21:43. It may be that in one sense the Kingdom was taken from the Jews as a whole, and given over to Remnant (read faithful) Israel consisting of believing/faithful Jews and Gentiles (making up the Church).
31 He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field.32 It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches."- Matt. 13:31-32
The Kingdom, like a nearly invisible mustard seed, slowly grows to become a large tree. It's not the first time a tree was used to represent a Kingdom (see Daniel chap. 4 where Nebuchadnezzar's Kingdom is described such).
Please forgive all the typos, grammatical mistakes and incoherent sentences above. I won't correct them because I think most readers will understand what I meant without it.
I wrote, "The approximately 40 year span from Christ's crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem possibly being the fulfillment of Christ's statement that all the thing He prophesied in the Olivet Discourse would be fulfilled before the generation of people who heard Him preach would die out (per Partial Preterism)."
I was referring to these passages:
Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place.- Luke 21:32
Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.- Matt. 23:34
If Christ's crucifixion took place 30 AD, then the destruction of the Temple occurred exactly 40 years later. Though, I lean toward a 33 AD date. Regardless, 40 years is symbolic of a time of testing as well as being one of a few numbers representing a full generation. That's why the wandering in the wilderness is described as a time of testing and as having allowed an unbelieving generation to die off. As God gave Noah 120 years to preach repentance, so God gave approximately 40 years for the Church to preach repentance to Israel before she was finally punished at 70 AD with the destruction of the Temple.
It's interesting that the book of Revelation never mentions 7 years (contrary to Dispensational Premillennialists). Though, it does repeatedly mention 3 1/2 years; 1260 days, and 42 months (which are all equivalent). If Revelation is to be interpreted preteristically (at least in part), then it is interesting that the siege of Jerusalem (as I understand it) took about 3 1/2 years, from about 66 AD to 70 AD.
In the past few decades scholars have recognized that the New Testament teaches an "already, but not yet" view of the Kingdom. Gerhardus Vos early in the 20th century taught a variation of this and it was popularized 1950s by George Eldon Ladd. Basically, it teaches that there's a sense in which the Kingdom is already present now spiritually with God's rule/dominion/kingdom reigning in the hearts of believers, yet in another sense we're also waiting for its full manifestation. Possibly with Christ's direct rule visibly as the global King of the Earth in the future.
Even the Apostles taught this distinction. Paul could say that the Kingdom was future when he said, "we must through many tribulations [eventually] enter the Kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22). But he also taught a present foretaste of the Kingdom when he said, "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17).
Jesus clearly taught both senses too. There's no need to prove the "not yet" aspect, since that's not relevant to RK's questions/objections.
Here are some passages that seem to teach Jesus' understanding of the PRESENT manifestation of the Kingdom.
20Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, 21nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”- Luke 17:20-21
17But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls. 18And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. 19And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 20But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.- Luke 11:17-20
Even at that time the Kingdom of God was striking a blow against the Kingdom of Satan. For an interesting and controversial take on this see Mike Heiser's interview on the topic of Christ's war against the Kingdom of Darkness HERE. [I don't endorse the eschatology of SkyWatchTV. Though, I generally agree with Heiser's interpretation].
Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."- Luke 18:17
11 Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John,14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear.- Matt. 11:11-15
16 "The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it.- Luke 16:16
9 Heal the sick in it and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.'10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say,11 'Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.'- Luke 10:9-11
18 He said therefore, "What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it?19 It is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden, and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches." 20 And again he said, "To what shall I compare the kingdom of God?21 It is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, until it was all leavened."- Luke 13:18-20
26 And he said, "The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground.27 He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how.28 The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come." 30 And he said, "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it?31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth,32 yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade."- Mark 4:26-32
I'm open to any of the three millennial positions (Premil, Amil, Postmil). However, I find Postmillennialism really attractive. IF Postmillennialism is true, then maybe some of the tenets of Reconstructionism and Dominionism are true and will eventually lead to a world where the majority of human beings living on earth and the majority of governments being Christian.
I've posted all of the above comments to address RK's main/foundational objection that the Kingdom of God hasn't appeared contrary to Daniel's prophecies. I think there's plenty of Biblical reasons to think it has appeared.
Historically, Dispensationalists have taught that the Kingdom of God was entirely in the future (whether Classic Dispensationalism, Hyper-Dispensatinalism (in all its 3+ forms), Revised Dispensationalism). However, most seminary trained Dispensationalists are now Progressive Dispensationalists who affirm the Kingdom is, in some sense, NOW. Also, that in some sense Jesus is NOW reigning on the throne of David. They were forced into that position based on the Biblical evidence (see the works of Progressive Dispensationalists).
One of the main objections Jews have to Christianity is that they expect the Messiah to bring about a world of peace. Since there isn't such global peace when they look out their windows, they think they're justified in rejecting Christianity.
Well, here are some lists of Jewish Rabbis who accepted Jesus/Yeshua as the Messiah.
"Please forgive all the typos, grammatical mistakes and incoherent sentences above. I won't correct them because I think most readers will understand what I meant without it."
I do expect the same.
"Prophecy wasn't given primarily to convince skeptics, but to encourage believers, as well as eventually vindicating God at the end (i.e. at the eschaton)."
This is the greatest inconsistency I hate. If a person starts a new cult and says the above to you, then you will understand what it feels to me. There are some skeptics whose expectations are not satisfied by any truth claim that they don't like. Of course, I'm having my own bias towards and against god, but that does not mean I am willing to deceive myself.
Nostradamus prophecies are vague,unclear,imprecise so that anything can be read into them. What's the difference between you and JW's and Mormons? My expectations are reasonable.
Unlike your claim that the prophecies are vague so that skeptics will not be convinced, the prophecy of 70 weeks is at least clear in it's important claim. It is all about restoration of Jerusalem and Jews and about finishing the transgression of Jews and 70 weeks are literal because if the weeks are symbolic they would not have been separated into different segments. The time set for 70 weeks is finished long ago and what the angel allegedly told to Daniel did not happen, instead Jerusalem was destroyed and Jews were scattered.
I am not here for arguments, though my tone was not good yesterday, I'm willing to listen to you. I want to find the truth. In the early days of my skepticism, book of Daniel seemed to me to be a crude forgery but I can't hold that view any longer. I don't know what exactly these Mill's are, but I am familiar with pre-Mill's. Their views seems to be more consistent than yours though their adhoc assumptions to account for failure of prophecy are ridiculous, I mean prophetic gap, restored Rome etc. If the kingdom of god is what you say, it is quite contradictory to the impression given in the Daniel.
"The time set for 70 weeks is finished long ago and what the angel allegedly told to Daniel did not happen, instead Jerusalem was destroyed and Jews were scattered."
The destruction of Jerusalem is part of the prophecy. So are other events that happened after the Maccabean era, which means that a Maccabean dating of Daniel fails to explain why Daniel's prophecies align so well with those events. See my comments on post-Maccabean fulfillment in the second-to-last paragraph of the post I linked earlier.
"Nostradamus prophecies are vague,unclear,imprecise so that anything can be read into them. What's the difference between you and JW's and Mormons? My expectations are reasonable."
One distinction is when people make a very public prediction. What was said cannot be denied. If the predictions as false, then all a millennial cult can do is to reinterpret the oracles of their founder or prophet.
This is true for written predictions as well as predictions that were witnessed by too many people for the "prophet" to deny what he said.
But one problem with imputing false prophecy to Scripture is what would motivate Bible writers, "editors" and scribes to commit these oracles to writing in the first place, or to preserve them for posterity. If these allegedly short-term oracles were already known to be false, there's no need to reinterpret them; rather, there'd be a disincentive to transcribe them. The spoken word will be forgotten unless someone writes it down. And unless that's copied and recopied.
Keep in mind that people who impute false prophecy to Scripture believe the books of Scripture have been repeatedly redacted. So there's no need to reinterpret a false prophecy when that can simply be deleted from the next edition.
Why would manifestly false prophecies be elevated to canonical status? Rather, why not let the spoken word go unrecorded? Of if initially recorded, why continue to transcribe it?
Finally, there's a false dichotomy about the "vagueness" of prophecy. There's a sense in which a prediction can be unclear in advance of the fact, but clear after the fact. In retrospect, the pieces suddenly fall into place.
1) Linguistic issue: Regarding the dating by linguistic methods K.A Kitchen said "The date of the book of Daniel, in short, cannot be decided upon linguistic grounds alone. It is equally obscurantist to exclude dogmatically a sixth-fifth (or fourth) century date on the one hand, or to hold such a date as mechanically proven on the other, as far as the Aramaic is concerned."
This is why I said the language might be early but I haven't excluded the claim of late language. The scholars you cite derived their conclusions from Kitchen's outstanding work. So what I have stated is supported by Kitchen's conclusion. The date might be early or late. There is no such monograph was produced on the Hebrew of Daniel. So I have allowed this possibility even for the Hebrew of Daniel.
Regarding the linguistic problems I mentioned, Collins spent 11 pages to discuss these problems with almost 130 scholarly citations from the early date defenders and experts in the field of linguistics.
So I am entirely correct regarding linguistic issues. As I am open minded towards early date I have allowed the possibility of early language for language.
2)Kingdom issue: Daniel says regarding the kingdom
----->>2.44: it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
When did your supposed kingdom broke all other kingdoms in pieces?
----->>7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
The world today is full of blasphemy of god, evil, wicked persons. What kind of dominion is it?
----->>7:11 I beheld at that time because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake; I beheld even till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed, and it was given to be burned with fire.
When did this little horn turned up in history? and when did the fourth beast was slain?
----->>7:12 And as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.
How can one differentiate between the destruction of fourth beast the remaining three beasts?
----->> 7:27 And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High: his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
Is it happening today?
Your christian view of kingdoms is not the view of kingdom in Daniel. Your understanding of the kingdom is radically different from Daniel's understanding.
3)Textual, manuscript, and external evidence:
None of this evidence necessitates a pre-Maccabean composition of the present form of the book of Daniel. If there is any piece of evidence of this kind I would be very thankful to hear from you.
4)Best explanation of Daniel which can involve Trade-offs:
A prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)
Moses does not accept this criterion.
5)70 weeks: ---->> Jason Engwer:The destruction of Jerusalem is part of the prophecy.
This prophecy may be the most enigmatic prophecy of entire OT. There are many exegetical issues involved with this prophecy. Montgomery spends more than 15 pages on this issues on just three verses of 70 weeks prophecy. This being the case, the destruction of Jerusalem being the part of prophecy has to be demonstrated. It is a possibility. I haven't seen any such demonstration or exegesis.
This prophecy may be the most enigmatic prophecy of entire OT. There are many exegetical issues involved with this prophecy.
And yet you're confident in your interpretation of it and how it's fulfillment(s) have failed. That doesn't seem consistent to me. Again, the prophecies were primarily given to believers who don't need their theism verified. There's also the issue of possible multivalent and multiple fulfillments (spiritual and historical). The book must be interpreted according to the culture and literary conventions of the day, not by modern skeptical standards/criteria. I don't know how far back in history the Jewish hermeneutical approach of PaRDeS goes, but messianic Jewish scholar Arnold Fruchtenbaum has argued it goes back at least as far as the 1st century.
Fruchtenbaum argues the following four ways.
*P*ardes Literal Prophecy Plus Literal Fulfillment: Pshat The first category is known as “literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment,” reflecting the rabbinic pshat, which refers to the simple meaning of the text. The example of this first category is found in Matthew 2:5 6.
pa*R*des Literal Plus Typical: Remez The second category of quotations can be labeled “literal plus typical.” In rabbinic theology it was known are remez or “hint.” An example of this category is found in Matthew 2:15.
par*D*es Literal Plus Application: Drash The third category is “literal plus application,” correlating with the rabbinic drash. The example of this category is Matthew 2:17 18.
parde*S* Summation: Sod The fourth category is “summation” or “summary.” The meaning of sod is “secret” or “mystery” or “something unknown.” The example of the fourth category is found in Matthew 2:23.
Fruchtenbaum describes PaRDeS in lecture 3 (of 21) in his series Life of the Messiah (which is linked in my blogpost HERE).
This being the case, the destruction of Jerusalem being the part of prophecy has to be demonstrated. It is a possibility. I haven't seen any such demonstration or exegesis.
Does not Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 prove that it is about 70 AD and the destruction of the 2nd temple?
That would show that Daniel 9:26-27 is about 70 AD; but, it seems that Daniel 11:31 and 12:11 is about 167 BC when Antiochus IV set up an pagan altar and sacrificed a pig (to Zeus ?) .
"This is why I said the language might be early but I haven't excluded the claim of late language. The scholars you cite derived their conclusions from Kitchen's outstanding work. So what I have stated is supported by Kitchen's conclusion. The date might be early or late. There is no such monograph was produced on the Hebrew of Daniel. So I have allowed this possibility even for the Hebrew of Daniel. Regarding the linguistic problems I mentioned, Collins spent 11 pages to discuss these problems with almost 130 scholarly citations from the early date defenders and experts in the field of linguistics. So I am entirely correct regarding linguistic issues."
Again, you're the one who initiated this discussion of language issues by citing "linguistic problems" against an earlier dating of Daniel in your first post. But now you tell us that "language has no value in establishing the date".
You quote Kitchen, but provide no source. You need to include more documentation for your claims. What you've quoted comes from Kitchen's article here, and your quotation is irrelevant to my argument. I haven't argued that the date of Daniel is "decided upon linguistic grounds alone", nor have I suggested that the traditional dating of the book is "mechanically proven" by an appeal to the book's Aramaic. Rather, I've argued that the linguistic evidence favors a pre-Maccabean date for the book. Kitchen doesn't deny that argument in the passage you've quoted from his article.
Furthermore, your claim that the scholars I cited derived their conclusions from Kitchen is either wrong or insignificant. If you're saying that they relied only on Kitchen, that's false. If you're saying that they relied on Kitchen along with other sources, so what? Both of the scholars I mentioned cite more than Kitchen's work.
Your comment that "no such monograph was produced on the Hebrew of Daniel" doesn't have much significance. You don't tell us what would qualify as "such a monograph", nor do you explain why we'd need one. Scholars, like the ones I cited, can make judgments about the Hebrew of Daniel and cite evidence relevant to it without having the sort of monograph you're referring to.
And the relevant languages aren't just Aramaic and Hebrew. We also have to account for the use of loanwords, the lack of more Greek influence on Daniel, how unfamiliar sources around the Maccabean era were with some of the terminology found in Daniel, etc. Kitchen raises such issues in the article you quoted.
"Is it happening today? Your christian view of kingdoms is not the view of kingdom in Daniel. Your understanding of the kingdom is radically different from Daniel's understanding."
Whether the events in question need to be "happening today" is one of the issues under dispute. You keep assuming your conclusion without arguing for it.
My position is that the kingdom of God grows over time (Daniel 2:35) and will eventually exist in the eschatological form described in some passages in Daniel. If you want us to believe that the kingdom has to exist in that eschatological form all along or earlier than I maintain, then you need to argue for that position instead of just assuming it.
You write:
"Textual, manuscript, and external evidence: None of this evidence necessitates a pre-Maccabean composition of the present form of the book of Daniel. If there is any piece of evidence of this kind I would be very thankful to hear from you."
The issue isn't what's "necessitated". Rather, it's a matter of probability. I've cited some Daniel commentaries that address many of the relevant issues. If you want online resources, a lot of good points are made here, here, here, and here.
You write:
"Moses does not accept this criterion."
You made that comment after quoting Deuteronomy 18:20-2. You keep assuming that Daniel's prophecies have been falsified if they haven't been fulfilled yet. That's a dubious assumption. As Steve told you in his first response, Daniel didn't place calendar dates on his prophecies.
One of the reasons why we expect the prophecies not yet fulfilled to be fulfilled in the future is that the prophecies already fulfilled warrant that expectation. That's why I keep citing the post-Maccabean prophecies that have already been fulfilled. Similarly, an individual living during the time of Daniel's third kingdom could expect later prophecies to be fulfilled on the basis of what had been fulfilled up to that point in time. It would be ridiculous for somebody to have come along at that point and objected that the fourth kingdom hadn't been fulfilled or that its fulfillment was taking too long, all the while ignoring the significance of the prophecies already fulfilled. That's what you keep doing.
You write:
"This being the case, the destruction of Jerusalem being the part of prophecy has to be demonstrated. It is a possibility. I haven't seen any such demonstration or exegesis."
I don't know if you're questioning whether Daniel 9:26 is referring to a destruction of Jerusalem, questioning whether the destruction in 70 A.D. is in view without questioning that some sort of destruction is being described, or something else. Tell me what you think the relevant part of 9:26 is referring to.
Your christian view of kingdoms is not the view of kingdom in Daniel. Your understanding of the kingdom is radically different from Daniel's understanding.
My view of the Kingdom is not "THE" Christian one. Other Christians like Steve and Jason may differ.
"I don't know what exactly these Mill's are, but I am familiar with pre-Mill's. Their views seems to be more consistent than yours though their adhoc assumptions to account for failure of prophecy are ridiculous, I mean prophetic gap, restored Rome etc. If the kingdom of god is what you say, it is quite contradictory to the impression given in the Daniel.
It's Premillennial Dispensationalists who have to use ad hoc concepts like a "prophetic gap" or "parenthesis". Most Postmillennialists and Amillennialists see Daniel 9 as being fulfilled. I recommend you read up on Postmillennialism and the arguments for it.
----->>7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Many translations have the phrase "SHOULD/WOULD serve him" (or words to that effect). I don't know Hebrew, but could it be that it's not saying they will all immediately serve him at that time, but that after having received the kingdom, time progresses so that more and more peoples/nations do serve him? That's the Postmillennial understanding of the Kingdom gradually conquering the world like the growth of a tree, the rising of bread and wheat (Mark 4:26-29).
The Son of Man in the clouds passages in Daniel 7 is interpreted by Dispensationalists as Christ Coming DOWN at the 2nd Advent. However, Postmillennialists have argued strongly that it refers to Christ Ascension, or Going UP to heaven. Since then, having sat down at the Father's right hand, His enemies are being made His footstool (cf. Ps. 110:1 often quoted in the NT and universally acknowledged as Messianic even by non-Christian Jews, Heb. 1:3). See Strawbridge's audio lecture on Postmil.
----->>2.44: it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. When did your supposed kingdom broke all other kingdoms in pieces?
For 2000 years the Church hasn't been destroyed yet. It's larger than it has ever been. The Church has outlasted the the British Empire, Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Spanish Empire, Mongol Empire, Russian Empire, Second French colonial empire, Qing dynasty, Abbasid Caliphate, Umayyad Caliphate, Yuan dynasty, Tang dynasty, Portuguese Empire, Persian Empire, Parthian Empire. etc.
The world today is full of blasphemy of god, evil, wicked persons. What kind of dominion is it?
I'd say Jesus has done pretty good at building His Church. You need a greater/wider perspective on history (past and present). Not talking about you in particular, but many atheists need to read and converse with more people outside of their skeptical cliques, bubbles and echo chambers.
I was a Premillennialists for the first 13 years of being a Christian (c. 1988-2000). A Revised (Pre-Tribulational) Dispensationalist (the most common kind) from c. 1994-1997, then a Progressive Dispensationalist c. 1997-2000. By 2000 I leaned toward Postmill and Amill. One of the main reasons I left Dispensationalism is precisely because I realized that the Kingdom of Christ is (in some sense) a present reality (as even Prog. Disp. scholars admitted).
It might be argued that the concept of a present spiritual Kingdom is a Christian innovation not found in the OT. Postmillennialists would beg to differ. I recommend their books where they go into the details of many OT prophecies.
The concept of a "Remnant Israel" that's spiritually faithful was developed in the OT not the NT. Compare the incident with the 7000 whom God spiritually preserved when Elijah thought he was the only one left. Same with the use of the term "Zion" and "Mount Zion" to refer to faithful victorious Israel distinct from actual the physical location. The OT predicted that the New Covenant would be one that was spiritual such that God would take out hearts of "stone" and replace them with "hearts of flesh" where the His laws would be written on them.
Notice how the stone "cut out without hands" in Daniel 2 doesn't start out as a mountain. If the Kingdom was supposed to arrive in all its fullness instantaneously then it would have been a mountain from the start. Rather, it becomes a great mountain afterwards and fills the whole earth. Notice too how in Nebuchadnezzar's dream his tree/kingdom STARTED OUT as a tree. Whereas many of Christ's parables regarding the Kingdom of God/Heaven involve growth over time. Whether the growth of a mustard seed into a tree, rising of bread or growth of wheat (Mark 4:26-29). The parable of the wheat and tares describes the field as the world. Nevertheless, it is a WHEAT field, Not a weed/tares field. That's why at the end of the Age Jesus says, "The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels.40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age.41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather OUT OF HIS KINGDOM all causes of sin and all law-breakers" -Matt. 13:29b-41.
For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.- Hab. 2:14
Filling takes time.
The Messianic Kingdom is described in Ezekiel 47 as a river that flows from the temple that (contrary to intuition and nature) miraculously gets deeper and wider as it flow farther from the source. As the fresh water reaches salt water, it changes them to fresh. This spiritual vision may describe the progress of the Kingdom and its effect on the world it encounters as people accept the Gospel. Those who don't accept it don't have their salt water turned into fresh (v. 11).
The OT repeatedly likens the Messianic Kingdom Age to the transformation of a dry desert wilderness into a garden with fruit and flowers (Isa. 35:1-2, 6; 27:6; 32:15ff; 41:18; Hos. 14:5-6 etc.). Transformations like that take time.
"6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the INCREASE of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.- Isa. 9:6-7
If the English properly conveys the Hebrew, then possibly the term "INCREASE" does imply growth, progress and development. Not all, but some commentators who know Hebrew do include this interpretation. For example John Gill who says of the phrase "Of the increase of his government":
That is, of the Prince of peace, on whose shoulders it is; which, from small beginnings, will rise to a very great pitch and height of glory; this is signified by the stone cut out of the mountain without hands; that smote the image, became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth, Daniel 2:34 and by the parable of the mustard seed, the least of all seeds, and yet, when grown up, becomes a great tree, in which the birds of the air build their nests, Matthew 13:31. [Interesting he cites the same passages I do- AP] Christ's kingdom and interest, his dominion and government, may be said to be increased, when his Gospel is spread far and near, which is called the Gospel of the kingdom, and the doctrines of it, the mysteries of the kingdom; by means of which men become subjects of it, and so his kingdom is enlarged. At first it was only preached in Judea; and then it was carried into the Gentile world, where it met with great success, and was spread to the overthrow of Paganism in the Roman empire..... et cetera.
The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.- Ps. 118:22 therefore thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: ‘Whoever believes will not be in haste.’- Isa. 28:16
The Messiah is reckoned like a cornerstone upon and around which more stones are laid in order to build an edifice (cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-8; Eph. 2:10; 1 Cor. 3:12 etc.). Building takes time.
The OT also predicts that the Messiah will initially be rejected by His people in general (e.g. Isa. 52:14; 53:1-3; Joseph who was a type of Christ was not initially recognized by his brothers in Egypt [google Joseph as a type of Christ for more parallels between them]). His acceptance by His people takes time.
I think Postmillers are right when they say Dispensationalists have too narrow an understanding of fulfillment when they emphasize the land promises to Israel. God promised not just Palestine, but the ENTIRE WORLD to Abraham and his seed ("...in you [Abraham] all the families of the earth shall be blessed"- Gen. 12:3b).
Hess' article does not seem to deal much with non-dispensational and non-liberal interpretations of Daniel 9:24-27.
Because of Matthew 24:15, it seems clear that Daniel 9:24-27 includes AD 70 and the destruction of the 2nd temple, because Jesus is predicting it's total destruction in Matthew 23:36 to 24:1-3. So, that means, the Messiah being cut off (see also Isaiah 53:8, "cut off from the land of the living", although it is a different Hebrew word) is referring to Himself and His crucifixion.
70 AD = The "desolations that are determined/decreed" seems to indicate that Jesus decreed the desolations around 30 AD and they were fulfilled in 70 with the destruction of the temple. It is interesting that in Rabbi Tovia Singer’s lecture on Daniel 9:24-27, https://outreachjudaism.org/daniel-nines-70-weeks-audio/
he agrees with: 1. That the seventy weeks means seventy periods of seven years = 490 years 2. That that time takes us up to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and Daniel 9:26 describes the destruction of the temple 3. That the people of the prince to come are the Romans and Titus, who destroyed the temple. (70 AD)
24 “Seventy weeks [ 490 years, because "years" are clearly what is talked about in Daniel 9:1-2 and the finishing of the 70 years of captivity ] have been decreed for your people and your holy city, [ for the OT people and city of Jerusalem to become the Old covenant and replaced by the new Covenant for all nations; that Luke 24:46-49 emphasizes that the gospel has to start from Jerusalem is a connection that seems important]
to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, [after the 490 years, the atonement on the cross accomplished these three descriptions]
to bring in everlasting righteousness, [ eternal righteousness is brought in when someone is justified by faith in Christ alone – Romans 3, 4, 5, Galatians] to seal up vision and prophecy [ end of revelation with NT writings] and to anoint the most holy place [ or most holy one = Messiah’s anointing when baptized]
25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem [ 457 BC decree of Artaxerxes ] until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks (49 = ? maybe time for foundation of the temple, and temple and Jews settling back in the land) and sixty-two weeks [ 49 + 62 = 483 years, which brings us to 26 AD, when Jesus was baptized or anointed] ; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.
26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off [see parallel with the suffering servant being “cut off from the land of the living” in Isaiah 53:8] and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. [ 70 AD and destruction of the temple was decreed by Jesus in Matthew 24 in 30 Ad and fulfilled 40 years later] And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week [ Is this the time of Jesus' ministry - anointing at baptism by the Holy Spirit, and in the middle crucified ( ?) and 3 and 1/2 years until Paul is converted and the gospel begins to really go out to the Gentiles more, maybe ?, possible]
, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering [ argument of book of Hebrews, no more sacrifices for sin] ; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed [decreed 40 years earlier], is poured out on the one who makes desolate.
Of course some of the other details, the Rabbi does not agree with the Christian interpretation, but the ones he does agree with are very interesting, and give evidence of the first century Jewish followers of Jesus view and Christian interpretation.
There are numerous problems taking this prophecy as something that refers to A.D. 70. The book is really about the persecution under Epiphanes. He is the one destroying the people and the temple/stopping the daily sacrifice throughout the book. To take it as something else is to ignore the context of the entire book. As for Jesus' use of it in the Olivet Discourse, it seems best to understand it as typological rather than a direct prophecy about that event, simply because the abomination of desolation in Daniel refers to Antiochus, there is no literal abomination of desolation in the destruction of Jerusalem, and it seems to have other applications for other events (2 Thes 2:3-4).
>>>>>He is the one destroying the people and the temple/stopping the daily sacrifice throughout the book. To take it as something else is to ignore the context of the entire book.
I think your assertion is not supported by the book of Daniel.
I know your arguments for the conclusion you have reached because once I held that position too. I have demonstrated that they are not valid here: http://pagebin.com/aNw7M8Op
First three kingdoms are Babylon,MP and Greece. Daniel presented two little horns of same Anti-God character.
The book has enough hints to distinguish between the time of the Maccabees and time of the end. So Jesus Christ is 100% correct in his understanding of abomination of desolation.
Actually, the book itself will bear out that the first three kingdoms are Babylon, Media, and Persia. The fourth is Greece and the broken, weaker kingdom that comes from Greece is the Seleucid Empire. I have a lecture series on my blog Theological Sushi that shows that it's pretty difficult to make the book about something other than the persecution under Epiphanes. To make it about A.D. 70 is to ignore numerous indicators in the book that tell the reader what kingdoms are involved (e.g., Persia is not a weaker kingdom than Babylon, Media is. Persia rules over the entire ancient Near Eastern world as the bronze does, which makes Greece the one of iron and the Seleucid Empire a weaker kingdom broken up from the Greek Empire, etc.). I would continue to study more and reconsider your position.
Jesus Christ is 100% right in his typological use of many things, including the abomination of desolation. That does not make them literal referents.
9:24 Seventy weeks are decreed/determined upon/on/against your people/Jews and upon your holy city/Jerusalem, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to 'seal up'/fulfill vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy.
9:25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment/decree/word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto/until/to the/an 'anointed one'/messiah, the prince/nagid, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: it/Jerusalem shall be/stand built/rebuilt again, with street and moat, even in troublous times.
9:26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall the/an 'anointed one'/messiah be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people/Jews/Seleucids/Romans of the prince/nagid/Messiah/Anti-god that shall come shall destroy/corrupt/rebel the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof/city/prince/Jews/Seleucids/Romans shall be with a flood, and 'even unto'/until/'and to' the end shall be war; desolations/ are determined/decreed.
9:27 And he/prince/'anointed one'/Christ/Anti-God shall 'make a firm'/'confirm a'/'force a' covenant/treaty/'NT covenant' with many/Jews/Gentiles/Hellenizers/Apostles/'NT believers' for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation/offering to cease/halt/'put to end with force'; and upon the wing of abominations shall come 'one that makets desolate'/Anti-God/Epiphanes/Jews; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate/Epiphanes/Anti-god/Jews.
with this much of ambiguity and many interpretations, only one thing is clear in the scripture, that is 9:24. By the end of 70 weeks, transgression of Jerusalem and Jews will be finished, their sins will end, reconciliation will be made for Jews and Jerusalem, everlasting righteousness will be brought, prophecy will be sealed up, and most holy will be anointed.
Steve or Engwer, can you please show me the fulfillment of the prophecy in history and can you please explain if any of your interpretation does not follow the impression given in this prophecy, on what basis it is justified?
"with this much of ambiguity and many interpretations, only one thing is clear in the scripture, that is 9:24."
You say that even though your interpretation of 9:24 is disputed. You assume, without argument, that your interpretation is correct on disputed issues, and you even call your interpretation "clear". Yet, you act as though disputes over other people's interpretations prove that those matters can't be resolved and you don't interact with their arguments for their interpretations.
Why would an interpretation have to be clear in order to be probable? It wouldn't. You keep framing these discussions in irrational ways that favor your desired conclusions. You ask for evidence that "necessitates" a conclusion you disagree with, that's "clear" by your standards, etc.
Furthermore, if 9:24 is all that's sufficiently clear, then how do you know that the remainder of the passage has been falsified? To justify your conclusion, you'd have to know how to interpret the remainder of the passage, including disputed portions of it.
Another problem with your approach is that it fails to avoid what you're trying to avoid. In my post on Daniel that I linked earlier, I concluded by referring to a similarity between Daniel's prophecies and Isaiah's. There's another sense in which the two are similar, which I didn't discuss in that previous post. I've often noted that even if we were to grant a skeptical view of Isaiah's Suffering Servant prophecy, even if we were to say for the sake of argument that Jesus' alignment with the passage is only a secondary or typological fulfillment, his alignment with the passage would still be highly evidential for Christianity. The odds are greatly against Jesus' alignment with the passage by natural means, regardless of whether he fulfills the passage in a primary or secondary manner. The implication is that something supernatural has occurred. The same is true of Daniel's prophecies, including the seventy weeks passage.
And we don't have to settle every dispute about a prophecy, such as the seventy weeks one, to know some of the details and to know that those details are unlikely to be fulfilled naturalistically. So, it's highly significant when Jesus identifies himself as the Son of Man while having extremely unusual characteristics that align so well with the Son of Man figure Daniel refers to (being perceived as Divine, yet distinct from God in some manner, etc.), announces the coming of the kingdom of God, is crucified upon the sixty-ninth sabbatical cycle after Artaxerxes' decree to rebuild Jerusalem, is widely perceived as having made a final atonement for sin, both Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed after the purported atonement, Jesus' movement expands to include billions of people around the world, the people of Israel are regathered and form a nation again, Jerusalem takes on a central role in the world, etc. You can object that some parts of some prophecies aren't clear enough, that some portions of the prophecies still haven't been fulfilled, and that you think it's unreasonable to allow large passings of time (gaps) in some parts of the prophecies. It's still highly unlikely that Daniel's prophecies would have been fulfilled as much as they have been naturalistically. You keep objecting to alleged problems with Christian interpretations of Daniel, even when what you're objecting to is less problematic than a naturalistic alternative.
"The postponement of Gabriel’s 70th week is not, therefore, an intrusion into the text of 9.24-27. On the contrary, it is an important theological insight into the text’s message and signif-icance. It is also consistent with the backdrop to ch. 9. Between 931 and 587BC, Judah failed to observe precisely 49 Sabbatical years. So, in 587, God expelled them from their land, courtesy of the Babylonians. Judah’s requirement to observe Sabbatical years was then suspended, since the Judean were no longer in their own land (Lev. 25.2). No fur-ther Sabbaths were, therefore, added to the figure of 49 in the exile. Once Judah made good on her 49 missed Sabbaths (the 49th began in 539t), she was then released from Babylon’s dominion as Babylon’s king was judged (Jer. 25.11-12). As such, ch. 9’s chronology is predicated on the notion of a weekly cycle which is suspended throughout a period of judgment and exile. So, it would not seem inappropriate for the same kind of ‘suspension of weekly cycles’ to begin in the aftermath of the Messiah’s death."
Though I am not convinced by his explanation, it seems interesting. Just noticed this today. Please note at least now, I'm a truth seeker. I'm not trying to debunk something or prove something. Just trying to protect myself from the unjustified and claims and artificial explanations of Christians and looking for those who enlighten my understanding. It is very easy for me to get provoked by unjustified claims because I was deeply hurt by religion.
"with this much of ambiguity and many interpretations, only one thing is clear in the scripture, that is 9:24. By the end of 70 weeks, transgression of Jerusalem and Jews will be finished, their sins will end, reconciliation will be made for Jews and Jerusalem, everlasting righteousness will be brought, prophecy will be sealed up, and most holy will be anointed."
Actually, the sin being atoned for is being atoned by the exile, which is why Daniel expands the time of the exile in figurative sabbath years to reach all the way to the second century. The prophecy being sealed up/fulfilled is that of the prophecy concerning exile and oppression under other nations, enduring justice will be brought in when Antiochus dies, and the temple will be rededicated after its pollution by Epiphanes. You can make the prophecy something typological if you wish, or just read the first century and Jesus into it, but it certainly isn't clear to me that this has any direct connection to the first century A.D. I realize how the elements have a familiar sound in the ears of Christians, but this has led to a misunderstanding of this text by removing it from the prophecy and atonement for iniquity in the exile that Daniel is actually addressing.
Aren't the prophecies of Daniel failed? Where is the kingdom of god? Instead of restoration of Jerusalem and Jews, exactly the opposite happened in the post exilic history. This shows that rhe Daniel is a false prophet. This is the main reason why book of Daniel is a fiction written in second century BC in additional to historical inaccuracies, linguistic problems and interpretive gymnastics it's defenders make.
ReplyDeleteDaniel didn't place calendar dates on the fulfillment of his prophecies.
DeleteYou then attempt to preemptively discredit defenses of the 6C setting by calling them "interpretive gymnastics". That's a nice way for you to evade counterarguments.
RK,
DeleteWe have a collection of posts on issues related to prophecy here, and many of those posts are about Daniel. Your vague, unsupported claims don't advance the discussion.
Given the absurdity of the late dating of Daniel, you're in no position to act as though the earlier dating involves gymnastics that you don't need to interact with. Even many non-conservative scholars date portions of the book earlier than the second century B.C. The book portrays itself as a work written prior to the Maccabean era, its contents make far more sense in an earlier timeframe, the manuscript evidence supports an earlier date, the earliest external testimony among a large diversity of individuals and groups universally supports an earlier dating, the Maccabean dating requires widespread acceptance of a book as scripture by independent groups at a time when its prophecies would have been easily known to be false, the Maccabean dating is still too early to explain some of the fulfillments of the book's prophecies, etc. Given what's at stake, many scholars (and others) don't want to acknowledge the early dating of the book, but the resistance to an earlier date is a ramshackle façade.
About two years ago, Carol Newsom published a commentary on Daniel (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014). John Collins, one of the foremost Daniel scholars of our day, calls Newsom's work "the first major commentary on Daniel of the twenty-first century" (front flap). Newsom's commentary is the most substantial recent commentary I'm aware of to adopt the late dating of Daniel. If you want to see some gymnastics, take a look at her reasoning in support of a late date. You can read my review of her commentary here.
It seems to me from the simple logic, as Roman empire falsified the prophecies of Daniel the book can not be genuine. The author of Daniel reflected upon the Maccabean victories and the death of Antiochus Epiphanes and created a future fictitious fourth kingdom and another little horn and hoped that the same situation will exist at the time of the end and in the same way god will help them at the time of the end. The author supplemented his previous material with his new chapters and interpolations.
DeleteRoman empire passed away and 70 weeks are over yet there is no kingdom of god. This is foremost reason behind Maccabean dating of Daniel. As to the linguistic issues, I agree with you that the language might be earlier after accounting for orthographic update and emergence of textual tradition. Given the close ties of the Jews with the Persian authorities, presence of Persian words in the Daniel is not surprising. Even Hebrew of Daniel can be earlier but it can not be as the evidence for early date of Daniel, for one can imitate the early language just like the author of Bensira imitated the early language. Language has no value in establishing the date.
As to the Historical issues, it appears from the presentation of the author of first 6 chapters, he wrote stories according to his own purposes rather than history. The author must have the knowledge of Nabonidus, for as long as there is a memory of Belshazzar it is highly probable that there is also a memory of Nabonidus. Yet the author presented Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnezzar. So these chapters must be fiction according to the author's theological purposes.
I am very glad to inform you that the Darius the Mede is identified with Cyaxares II by Steven Anderson in his Ph.D dissertation with much ease and persuasion and without any insurmountable difficulties.
So these are my counter-arguments. I am in no way committed to either late date of early date for my convenience. It is all the matter of evidence and testing it's claims. My question is in what way the Roman empire has not falsified the Daniel's prophecies?
Hi steve and Jason,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your replies, may be my tone was not that good in my previous comment, apologies.
If the book contains no false prophecy, it is genuine irrespective of linguistic and historical problems. They must be evaluated subject to the paradigm of authenticity of book. If the book contains a false prophecy or falsified prophecy, it is fake irrespective of early language and historical accuracy. This is simple logic.
What I am asking for is the fulfillment of prophecy in the history. Daniel said that the four kingdoms shall reign over Israel and then God's kingdom will be established which I would be very glad to join and serve. Babylon,Media&Persia,Greece and Rome came and gone. Where is the kingdom of god? This failure shows, according to the logic given above the book is not genuine to the impression it gives.
It is reasonable for prophecy to be a bit vogue, but if it too much vogue so that anybody can give his own interpretation for the prophecy, what is the value of the prophecy? You take the impression the author of our book gives about it's authorship at face value and trust it. Why don't you do the same with 70 weeks? Isn't it inconsistent? All the numbers given in the book are literal for example the 1330 days given in chapter 12 for the end time generation can not be understood symbolically.
In no way I uncritically accept the theories of liberal christian scholars. Liberal scholarship on Daniel is a house built on sand. The scholarship changes over time, house collapses and new house is built. For example, scholarship over unity of Daniel has collapsed and a new paradigm emerged. Liberal scholars are not correct on the issue of the four kingdoms of Daniel. Of course, it is not their fault. The book gives such an impression for a scholar. Scholar's reading of the text is simplistic. A simplistic reading of the text can not dig up any complexities in the text. There are two little horns and the third kingdom is Greece. Liberal scholar's formation of Median empire has no support in the text except in it's superficial impression and in vogue and incidental parallels between the fourth kingdom and Greece.
RK,
DeleteYou haven't explained why we should think that a Christian view of Daniel's kingdom of God is wrong. Instead, you just assert that it's wrong, offer a weak response to some of the evidence for an earlier date for Daniel, and ignore the rest.
When you refer to how the language of Daniel "might be" or "can be" earlier than the Maccabean era, that's an insufficient response. Advocates of an earlier date for Daniel have produced evidence that the language probably, not just possibly, is earlier. See the relevant sections of the Daniel commentaries by Stephen Miller and Andrew Steinmann, for example. Saying that the author of Daniel was "imitating early language" isn't the best explanation for early language. We don't begin with a default assumption that language is something other than what it appears to be, written by a later source who had a highly unusual interest in and ability to imitate earlier language. You now tell us that "language has no value in establishing the date", even though you were the one who initiated the discussion of language with a reference to "linguistic problems".
You refer to how the author allegedly "reflected upon the Maccabean victories and the death of Antiochus Epiphanes" and "supplemented his previous material with his new chapters and interpolations". You make no effort to explain how such a process would produce the sort of textual, manuscript, and external evidence we see. I and others have already explained why views like yours are highly inconsistent with that evidence.
You write:
"If the book contains a false prophecy or falsified prophecy, it is fake irrespective of early language and historical accuracy."
What we're looking for is the best explanation of Daniel, which can involve tradeoffs. A view of the book could be worse at explaining a portion of the evidence, but be much better overall.
Since there's so much evidence for a pre-Maccabean dating of Daniel, and there's significant fulfillment of its prophecies after the Maccabean era, it would require evidence far more substantial than what you're citing here to justify dating the book to the Maccabean era. Defending a Christian view of Daniel's kingdom of God is far easier.
Comments are published in reverse order, I regret the inconvenience.
ReplyDelete...but if it too much vogue so that anybody can give his own interpretation for the prophecy, what is the value of the prophecy?
ReplyDeleteProphecy wasn't given primarily to convince skeptics, but to encourage believers, as well as eventually vindicating God at the end (i.e. at the eschaton).
I'm not committed to the following interpretations, but here are some ways the book of Daniel could be interpreted.
The kingdom of God has come and has been inaugurated with the establishment of the Church. The kingdom is initially a spiritual kingdom which will be established in all it's fullness (both spiritually and physically/visibly/governmentally) with the eventual the return of Christ. In the meantime, "the stone cut out without hands" (i.e. Christ the King, His Kingdom and it's citizens composed of the Church) grows to become a "great mountain" that slowly encompasses the earth per Postmillennialism.
34 As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces.
35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.- Daniel 2:34-35
Compare Matt. 13:33
He told them another parable. "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened."- Matt. 13:33
The leaven is there, but hidden. Yet, it's effects gradually manifest throughout the dough.
The finishing of the transgression and the putting an end to sin (Dan. 9:24) may refer to God's anger and punishment toward the people of God ending at the coming of Christ.
1 Comfort, comfort my people, says your God.
2 Speak tenderly to Jerusalem,
and cry to her
that her warfare is ended,
that her iniquity is pardoned,
that she has received from the LORD's hand
double for all her sins.
3 A voice cries:
"In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD;
make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be lifted up,
and every mountain and hill be made low;
the uneven ground shall become level,
and the rough places a plain.
5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed,
and all flesh shall see it together,
for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."- Isa. 40:1-5
CONT.
The "atoning for iniquity" (Dan. 9:24) may refer to Christ's sacrifice on the cross which forgives sin so that our spiritual debt is brought from a great negative in "the red" to zero. Then, the "bringing in of everlasting righteousness" (Dan. 9:24) may refer to how free and full justification (imputation of positive righteousness) is also available through faith in Christ who is our righteousness (Jer. 23:6; 1 Cor. 1:30).
DeleteThe final Week might be split up into two 3 and 1/2 years. The first 3 and 1/2 years may represent Christ's earthly ministry where, by His atoning death, where He ends the need for further additional sacrifices and offerings (at the very least, they literally ended at the destruction of the Temple). While the 2nd 3 and 1/2 years being fulfilled in the years leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The approximately 40 year span from Christ's crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem possibly being the fulfillment of Christ's statement that all the thing He prophesied in the Olivet Discourse would be fulfilled before the generation of people who heard Him preach would die out (per Partial Preterism). The book of Revelation may be interpreted in a Partial Preterist way, possibly in combination with an Idealist way (and so) with repeated spiritual and earthly fulfillments down through history. There might also be a possible secondary falling away and secondary anti-Christ [with Nero being the first]. See, Kim Riddlebarger's works where he argues for an Amillennialist and Idealist interpretation of Revelation. He's open to combining a partial preterist interpretation with his Idealist Amillennial view. He has said that if preterism is true, it isn't the entire truth because there are further fulfillments. See also Postmillennialist literature by folks like Kenneth Gentry.
Jesus said, "Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits"- Matt. 21:43. It may be that in one sense the Kingdom was taken from the Jews as a whole, and given over to Remnant (read faithful) Israel consisting of believing/faithful Jews and Gentiles (making up the Church).
31 He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field.32 It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches."- Matt. 13:31-32
The Kingdom, like a nearly invisible mustard seed, slowly grows to become a large tree. It's not the first time a tree was used to represent a Kingdom (see Daniel chap. 4 where Nebuchadnezzar's Kingdom is described such).
Please forgive all the typos, grammatical mistakes and incoherent sentences above. I won't correct them because I think most readers will understand what I meant without it.
DeleteI wrote, "The approximately 40 year span from Christ's crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem possibly being the fulfillment of Christ's statement that all the thing He prophesied in the Olivet Discourse would be fulfilled before the generation of people who heard Him preach would die out (per Partial Preterism)."
I was referring to these passages:
Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place.- Luke 21:32
Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.- Matt. 23:34
If Christ's crucifixion took place 30 AD, then the destruction of the Temple occurred exactly 40 years later. Though, I lean toward a 33 AD date. Regardless, 40 years is symbolic of a time of testing as well as being one of a few numbers representing a full generation. That's why the wandering in the wilderness is described as a time of testing and as having allowed an unbelieving generation to die off. As God gave Noah 120 years to preach repentance, so God gave approximately 40 years for the Church to preach repentance to Israel before she was finally punished at 70 AD with the destruction of the Temple.
It's interesting that the book of Revelation never mentions 7 years (contrary to Dispensational Premillennialists). Though, it does repeatedly mention 3 1/2 years; 1260 days, and 42 months (which are all equivalent). If Revelation is to be interpreted preteristically (at least in part), then it is interesting that the siege of Jerusalem (as I understand it) took about 3 1/2 years, from about 66 AD to 70 AD.
In the past few decades scholars have recognized that the New Testament teaches an "already, but not yet" view of the Kingdom. Gerhardus Vos early in the 20th century taught a variation of this and it was popularized 1950s by George Eldon Ladd. Basically, it teaches that there's a sense in which the Kingdom is already present now spiritually with God's rule/dominion/kingdom reigning in the hearts of believers, yet in another sense we're also waiting for its full manifestation. Possibly with Christ's direct rule visibly as the global King of the Earth in the future.
DeleteEven the Apostles taught this distinction. Paul could say that the Kingdom was future when he said, "we must through many tribulations [eventually] enter the Kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22). But he also taught a present foretaste of the Kingdom when he said, "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17).
Jesus clearly taught both senses too. There's no need to prove the "not yet" aspect, since that's not relevant to RK's questions/objections.
Here are some passages that seem to teach Jesus' understanding of the PRESENT manifestation of the Kingdom.
20Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, 21nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”- Luke 17:20-21
17But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls. 18And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. 19And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 20But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.- Luke 11:17-20
Even at that time the Kingdom of God was striking a blow against the Kingdom of Satan. For an interesting and controversial take on this see Mike Heiser's interview on the topic of Christ's war against the Kingdom of Darkness HERE. [I don't endorse the eschatology of SkyWatchTV. Though, I generally agree with Heiser's interpretation].
CONT.
DeleteTruly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."- Luke 18:17
11 Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John,14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear.- Matt. 11:11-15
16 "The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it.- Luke 16:16
9 Heal the sick in it and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.'10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say,11 'Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.'- Luke 10:9-11
18 He said therefore, "What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it?19 It is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden, and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches." 20 And again he said, "To what shall I compare the kingdom of God?21 It is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, until it was all leavened."- Luke 13:18-20
26 And he said, "The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground.27 He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how.28 The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come."
30 And he said, "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it?31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth,32 yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade."- Mark 4:26-32
I'm open to any of the three millennial positions (Premil, Amil, Postmil). However, I find Postmillennialism really attractive. IF Postmillennialism is true, then maybe some of the tenets of Reconstructionism and Dominionism are true and will eventually lead to a world where the majority of human beings living on earth and the majority of governments being Christian.
DeleteI've posted all of the above comments to address RK's main/foundational objection that the Kingdom of God hasn't appeared contrary to Daniel's prophecies. I think there's plenty of Biblical reasons to think it has appeared.
Historically, Dispensationalists have taught that the Kingdom of God was entirely in the future (whether Classic Dispensationalism, Hyper-Dispensatinalism (in all its 3+ forms), Revised Dispensationalism). However, most seminary trained Dispensationalists are now Progressive Dispensationalists who affirm the Kingdom is, in some sense, NOW. Also, that in some sense Jesus is NOW reigning on the throne of David. They were forced into that position based on the Biblical evidence (see the works of Progressive Dispensationalists).
One of the main objections Jews have to Christianity is that they expect the Messiah to bring about a world of peace. Since there isn't such global peace when they look out their windows, they think they're justified in rejecting Christianity.
Well, here are some lists of Jewish Rabbis who accepted Jesus/Yeshua as the Messiah.
Rabbis Who Thought For Themselves PART 1
http://www.messianicjudaism.me/yinon/2011/11/02/rabbis-who-thought-for-themselves/
Rabbis Who Thought For Themselves PART 2
http://www.messianicjudaism.me/yinon/2011/12/01/rabbis-who-thought-for-themselves-part-ii/
Rabbis who believed in Jesus the Messiah
http://www.messianicgoodnews.org/rabbis-who-believed/
Mp3 lecture by Riddlebarger on Daniel's 70 Weeks
Deletehttp://links.christreformed.org/realaudio/A20101008-Amillenialism.mp3
Mp3 lecture by Gentry on Daniel's 70 Week Prophecy
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1270414171
More lectures by Ken Gentry. Many of which are on eschatology and Postmillennialism:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Rev._Ken_Gentry
More lectures by Kim Riddlebarger. Many of which are on Amillennialism:
https://www.monergism.com/legacy/mt/mp3/amillennialism-101-mp3-series-kim-riddlebarger
http://christreformedinfo.squarespace.com/mp3s-and-real-audio-of-academy/
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Kim_Riddlebarger
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/reformed-amillennialism/
Three more lectures by Riddlebarger on Daniel. One of which is on the 70 Weeks.
Deletehttp://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/the-seventy-weeks-of-daniel/
It includes two charts.
"Please forgive all the typos, grammatical mistakes and incoherent sentences above. I won't correct them because I think most readers will understand what I meant without it."
DeleteI do expect the same.
"Prophecy wasn't given primarily to convince skeptics, but to encourage believers, as well as eventually vindicating God at the end (i.e. at the eschaton)."
This is the greatest inconsistency I hate. If a person starts a new cult and says the above to you, then you will understand what it feels to me. There are some skeptics whose expectations are not satisfied by any truth claim that they don't like. Of course, I'm having my own bias towards and against god, but that does not mean I am willing to deceive myself.
Nostradamus prophecies are vague,unclear,imprecise so that anything can be read into them. What's the difference between you and JW's and Mormons? My expectations are reasonable.
Unlike your claim that the prophecies are vague so that skeptics will not be convinced, the prophecy of 70 weeks is at least clear in it's important claim. It is all about restoration of Jerusalem and Jews and about finishing the transgression of Jews and 70 weeks are literal because if the weeks are symbolic they would not have been separated into different segments. The time set for 70 weeks is finished long ago and what the angel allegedly told to Daniel
did not happen, instead Jerusalem was destroyed and Jews were scattered.
I am not here for arguments, though my tone was not good yesterday, I'm willing to listen to you. I want to find the truth. In the early days of my skepticism, book of Daniel seemed to me to be a crude forgery but I can't hold that view any longer. I don't know what exactly these Mill's are, but I am familiar with pre-Mill's. Their views seems to be more consistent than yours though their adhoc assumptions to account for failure of prophecy are ridiculous, I mean prophetic gap, restored Rome etc. If the kingdom of god is what you say, it is quite contradictory to the impression given in the Daniel.
RK wrote:
Delete"The time set for 70 weeks is finished long ago and what the angel allegedly told to Daniel did not happen, instead Jerusalem was destroyed and Jews were scattered."
The destruction of Jerusalem is part of the prophecy. So are other events that happened after the Maccabean era, which means that a Maccabean dating of Daniel fails to explain why Daniel's prophecies align so well with those events. See my comments on post-Maccabean fulfillment in the second-to-last paragraph of the post I linked earlier.
"Nostradamus prophecies are vague,unclear,imprecise so that anything can be read into them. What's the difference between you and JW's and Mormons? My expectations are reasonable."
DeleteOne distinction is when people make a very public prediction. What was said cannot be denied. If the predictions as false, then all a millennial cult can do is to reinterpret the oracles of their founder or prophet.
This is true for written predictions as well as predictions that were witnessed by too many people for the "prophet" to deny what he said.
But one problem with imputing false prophecy to Scripture is what would motivate Bible writers, "editors" and scribes to commit these oracles to writing in the first place, or to preserve them for posterity. If these allegedly short-term oracles were already known to be false, there's no need to reinterpret them; rather, there'd be a disincentive to transcribe them. The spoken word will be forgotten unless someone writes it down. And unless that's copied and recopied.
Keep in mind that people who impute false prophecy to Scripture believe the books of Scripture have been repeatedly redacted. So there's no need to reinterpret a false prophecy when that can simply be deleted from the next edition.
Why would manifestly false prophecies be elevated to canonical status? Rather, why not let the spoken word go unrecorded? Of if initially recorded, why continue to transcribe it?
Finally, there's a false dichotomy about the "vagueness" of prophecy. There's a sense in which a prediction can be unclear in advance of the fact, but clear after the fact. In retrospect, the pieces suddenly fall into place.
1) Linguistic issue: Regarding the dating by linguistic methods K.A Kitchen said "The date of the book of Daniel, in short, cannot be decided upon linguistic grounds alone. It is equally obscurantist to exclude dogmatically a sixth-fifth (or fourth) century date on the one hand, or to hold such a date as mechanically proven on the other, as far as the Aramaic is concerned."
ReplyDeleteThis is why I said the language might be early but I haven't excluded the claim of late language. The scholars you cite derived their conclusions from Kitchen's outstanding work. So what I have stated is supported by Kitchen's conclusion. The date might be early or late. There is no such monograph was produced on the Hebrew of Daniel. So I have allowed this possibility even for the Hebrew of Daniel.
Regarding the linguistic problems I mentioned, Collins spent 11 pages to discuss these problems with almost 130 scholarly citations from the early date defenders and experts in the field of linguistics.
So I am entirely correct regarding linguistic issues. As I am open minded towards early date I have allowed the possibility of early language for language.
2)Kingdom issue:
Daniel says regarding the kingdom
----->>2.44: it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
When did your supposed kingdom broke all other kingdoms in pieces?
----->>7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
The world today is full of blasphemy of god, evil, wicked persons. What kind of dominion is it?
----->>7:11 I beheld at that time because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake; I beheld even till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed, and it was given to be burned with fire.
When did this little horn turned up in history? and when did the fourth beast was slain?
----->>7:12 And as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.
How can one differentiate between the destruction of fourth beast the remaining three beasts?
----->> 7:27 And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High: his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
Is it happening today?
Your christian view of kingdoms is not the view of kingdom in Daniel.
Your understanding of the kingdom is radically different from Daniel's understanding.
3)Textual, manuscript, and external evidence:
None of this evidence necessitates a pre-Maccabean composition of the present form of the book of Daniel. If there is any piece of evidence of this kind I would be very thankful to hear from you.
4)Best explanation of Daniel which can involve Trade-offs:
A prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)
Moses does not accept this criterion.
5)70 weeks:
---->> Jason Engwer:The destruction of Jerusalem is part of the prophecy.
This prophecy may be the most enigmatic prophecy of entire OT. There are many exegetical issues involved with this prophecy. Montgomery spends more than 15 pages on this issues on just three verses of 70 weeks prophecy. This being the case, the destruction of Jerusalem being the part of prophecy has to be demonstrated. It is a possibility. I haven't seen any such demonstration or exegesis.
This prophecy may be the most enigmatic prophecy of entire OT. There are many exegetical issues involved with this prophecy.
DeleteAnd yet you're confident in your interpretation of it and how it's fulfillment(s) have failed. That doesn't seem consistent to me. Again, the prophecies were primarily given to believers who don't need their theism verified. There's also the issue of possible multivalent and multiple fulfillments (spiritual and historical). The book must be interpreted according to the culture and literary conventions of the day, not by modern skeptical standards/criteria. I don't know how far back in history the Jewish hermeneutical approach of PaRDeS goes, but messianic Jewish scholar Arnold Fruchtenbaum has argued it goes back at least as far as the 1st century.
Fruchtenbaum argues the following four ways.
*P*ardes
Literal Prophecy Plus Literal Fulfillment: Pshat
The first category is known as “literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment,” reflecting the rabbinic pshat, which refers to the simple meaning of the text. The example of this first category is found in Matthew 2:5 6.
pa*R*des
Literal Plus Typical: Remez
The second category of quotations can be labeled “literal plus typical.” In rabbinic theology it was known are remez or “hint.” An example of this category is found in Matthew 2:15.
par*D*es
Literal Plus Application: Drash
The third category is “literal plus application,” correlating with the rabbinic drash. The example of this category is Matthew 2:17 18.
parde*S*
Summation: Sod
The fourth category is “summation” or “summary.” The meaning of sod is “secret” or “mystery” or “something unknown.” The example of the fourth category is found in Matthew 2:23.
Fruchtenbaum describes PaRDeS in lecture 3 (of 21) in his series Life of the Messiah (which is linked in my blogpost HERE).
Who his Montgomery? (specific book ?)
DeleteThis being the case, the destruction of Jerusalem being the part of prophecy has to be demonstrated. It is a possibility. I haven't seen any such demonstration or exegesis.
Does not Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 prove that it is about 70 AD and the destruction of the 2nd temple?
That would show that Daniel 9:26-27 is about 70 AD; but, it seems that Daniel 11:31 and 12:11 is about 167 BC when Antiochus IV set up an pagan altar and sacrificed a pig (to Zeus ?) .
I googled and found Montgomery's commentary on Daniel.
DeleteRK wrote:
Delete"This is why I said the language might be early but I haven't excluded the claim of late language. The scholars you cite derived their conclusions from Kitchen's outstanding work. So what I have stated is supported by Kitchen's conclusion. The date might be early or late. There is no such monograph was produced on the Hebrew of Daniel. So I have allowed this possibility even for the Hebrew of Daniel. Regarding the linguistic problems I mentioned, Collins spent 11 pages to discuss these problems with almost 130 scholarly citations from the early date defenders and experts in the field of linguistics. So I am entirely correct regarding linguistic issues."
Again, you're the one who initiated this discussion of language issues by citing "linguistic problems" against an earlier dating of Daniel in your first post. But now you tell us that "language has no value in establishing the date".
You quote Kitchen, but provide no source. You need to include more documentation for your claims. What you've quoted comes from Kitchen's article here, and your quotation is irrelevant to my argument. I haven't argued that the date of Daniel is "decided upon linguistic grounds alone", nor have I suggested that the traditional dating of the book is "mechanically proven" by an appeal to the book's Aramaic. Rather, I've argued that the linguistic evidence favors a pre-Maccabean date for the book. Kitchen doesn't deny that argument in the passage you've quoted from his article.
Furthermore, your claim that the scholars I cited derived their conclusions from Kitchen is either wrong or insignificant. If you're saying that they relied only on Kitchen, that's false. If you're saying that they relied on Kitchen along with other sources, so what? Both of the scholars I mentioned cite more than Kitchen's work.
Your comment that "no such monograph was produced on the Hebrew of Daniel" doesn't have much significance. You don't tell us what would qualify as "such a monograph", nor do you explain why we'd need one. Scholars, like the ones I cited, can make judgments about the Hebrew of Daniel and cite evidence relevant to it without having the sort of monograph you're referring to.
And the relevant languages aren't just Aramaic and Hebrew. We also have to account for the use of loanwords, the lack of more Greek influence on Daniel, how unfamiliar sources around the Maccabean era were with some of the terminology found in Daniel, etc. Kitchen raises such issues in the article you quoted.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou write:
"Is it happening today? Your christian view of kingdoms is not the view of kingdom in Daniel. Your understanding of the kingdom is radically different from Daniel's understanding."
Whether the events in question need to be "happening today" is one of the issues under dispute. You keep assuming your conclusion without arguing for it.
My position is that the kingdom of God grows over time (Daniel 2:35) and will eventually exist in the eschatological form described in some passages in Daniel. If you want us to believe that the kingdom has to exist in that eschatological form all along or earlier than I maintain, then you need to argue for that position instead of just assuming it.
You write:
"Textual, manuscript, and external evidence: None of this evidence necessitates a pre-Maccabean composition of the present form of the book of Daniel. If there is any piece of evidence of this kind I would be very thankful to hear from you."
The issue isn't what's "necessitated". Rather, it's a matter of probability. I've cited some Daniel commentaries that address many of the relevant issues. If you want online resources, a lot of good points are made here, here, here, and here.
You write:
"Moses does not accept this criterion."
You made that comment after quoting Deuteronomy 18:20-2. You keep assuming that Daniel's prophecies have been falsified if they haven't been fulfilled yet. That's a dubious assumption. As Steve told you in his first response, Daniel didn't place calendar dates on his prophecies.
One of the reasons why we expect the prophecies not yet fulfilled to be fulfilled in the future is that the prophecies already fulfilled warrant that expectation. That's why I keep citing the post-Maccabean prophecies that have already been fulfilled. Similarly, an individual living during the time of Daniel's third kingdom could expect later prophecies to be fulfilled on the basis of what had been fulfilled up to that point in time. It would be ridiculous for somebody to have come along at that point and objected that the fourth kingdom hadn't been fulfilled or that its fulfillment was taking too long, all the while ignoring the significance of the prophecies already fulfilled. That's what you keep doing.
You write:
"This being the case, the destruction of Jerusalem being the part of prophecy has to be demonstrated. It is a possibility. I haven't seen any such demonstration or exegesis."
I don't know if you're questioning whether Daniel 9:26 is referring to a destruction of Jerusalem, questioning whether the destruction in 70 A.D. is in view without questioning that some sort of destruction is being described, or something else. Tell me what you think the relevant part of 9:26 is referring to.
Your christian view of kingdoms is not the view of kingdom in Daniel. Your understanding of the kingdom is radically different from Daniel's understanding.
ReplyDeleteMy view of the Kingdom is not "THE" Christian one. Other Christians like Steve and Jason may differ.
"I don't know what exactly these Mill's are, but I am familiar with pre-Mill's. Their views seems to be more consistent than yours though their adhoc assumptions to account for failure of prophecy are ridiculous, I mean prophetic gap, restored Rome etc. If the kingdom of god is what you say, it is quite contradictory to the impression given in the Daniel.
It's Premillennial Dispensationalists who have to use ad hoc concepts like a "prophetic gap" or "parenthesis". Most Postmillennialists and Amillennialists see Daniel 9 as being fulfilled. I recommend you read up on Postmillennialism and the arguments for it.
----->>7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Many translations have the phrase "SHOULD/WOULD serve him" (or words to that effect). I don't know Hebrew, but could it be that it's not saying they will all immediately serve him at that time, but that after having received the kingdom, time progresses so that more and more peoples/nations do serve him? That's the Postmillennial understanding of the Kingdom gradually conquering the world like the growth of a tree, the rising of bread and wheat (Mark 4:26-29).
The Son of Man in the clouds passages in Daniel 7 is interpreted by Dispensationalists as Christ Coming DOWN at the 2nd Advent. However, Postmillennialists have argued strongly that it refers to Christ Ascension, or Going UP to heaven. Since then, having sat down at the Father's right hand, His enemies are being made His footstool (cf. Ps. 110:1 often quoted in the NT and universally acknowledged as Messianic even by non-Christian Jews, Heb. 1:3). See Strawbridge's audio lecture on Postmil.
----->>2.44: it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
When did your supposed kingdom broke all other kingdoms in pieces?
For 2000 years the Church hasn't been destroyed yet. It's larger than it has ever been. The Church has outlasted the the British Empire, Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Spanish Empire, Mongol Empire, Russian Empire, Second French colonial empire, Qing dynasty, Abbasid Caliphate, Umayyad Caliphate, Yuan dynasty, Tang dynasty, Portuguese Empire, Persian Empire, Parthian Empire. etc.
The world today is full of blasphemy of god, evil, wicked persons. What kind of dominion is it?
The nature of the kingdom is first within (i.e. spiritual). There are aprox. 2.2 BILLION Christian. Christianity is the largest religion in the world. China, which has the largest population of any country ONLY has 1.4 billion citizens by comparison. Many of whom are themselves Christian. Within the next 35 years China may become the largest Christian nation on earth. Jesus said, "...I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). So far, Christ has built a pretty big Kingdom.
I'd say Jesus has done pretty good at building His Church. You need a greater/wider perspective on history (past and present). Not talking about you in particular, but many atheists need to read and converse with more people outside of their skeptical cliques, bubbles and echo chambers.
DeleteI was a Premillennialists for the first 13 years of being a Christian (c. 1988-2000). A Revised (Pre-Tribulational) Dispensationalist (the most common kind) from c. 1994-1997, then a Progressive Dispensationalist c. 1997-2000. By 2000 I leaned toward Postmill and Amill. One of the main reasons I left Dispensationalism is precisely because I realized that the Kingdom of Christ is (in some sense) a present reality (as even Prog. Disp. scholars admitted).
It might be argued that the concept of a present spiritual Kingdom is a Christian innovation not found in the OT. Postmillennialists would beg to differ. I recommend their books where they go into the details of many OT prophecies.
The concept of a "Remnant Israel" that's spiritually faithful was developed in the OT not the NT. Compare the incident with the 7000 whom God spiritually preserved when Elijah thought he was the only one left. Same with the use of the term "Zion" and "Mount Zion" to refer to faithful victorious Israel distinct from actual the physical location. The OT predicted that the New Covenant would be one that was spiritual such that God would take out hearts of "stone" and replace them with "hearts of flesh" where the His laws would be written on them.
Notice how the stone "cut out without hands" in Daniel 2 doesn't start out as a mountain. If the Kingdom was supposed to arrive in all its fullness instantaneously then it would have been a mountain from the start. Rather, it becomes a great mountain afterwards and fills the whole earth. Notice too how in Nebuchadnezzar's dream his tree/kingdom STARTED OUT as a tree. Whereas many of Christ's parables regarding the Kingdom of God/Heaven involve growth over time. Whether the growth of a mustard seed into a tree, rising of bread or growth of wheat (Mark 4:26-29). The parable of the wheat and tares describes the field as the world. Nevertheless, it is a WHEAT field, Not a weed/tares field. That's why at the end of the Age Jesus says, "The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels.40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age.41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather OUT OF HIS KINGDOM all causes of sin and all law-breakers" -Matt. 13:29b-41.
For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.- Hab. 2:14
Filling takes time.
The Messianic Kingdom is described in Ezekiel 47 as a river that flows from the temple that (contrary to intuition and nature) miraculously gets deeper and wider as it flow farther from the source. As the fresh water reaches salt water, it changes them to fresh. This spiritual vision may describe the progress of the Kingdom and its effect on the world it encounters as people accept the Gospel. Those who don't accept it don't have their salt water turned into fresh (v. 11).
The OT repeatedly likens the Messianic Kingdom Age to the transformation of a dry desert wilderness into a garden with fruit and flowers (Isa. 35:1-2, 6; 27:6; 32:15ff; 41:18; Hos. 14:5-6 etc.). Transformations like that take time.
CONT.
"6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the INCREASE of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.- Isa. 9:6-7
DeleteIf the English properly conveys the Hebrew, then possibly the term "INCREASE" does imply growth, progress and development. Not all, but some commentators who know Hebrew do include this interpretation. For example John Gill who says of the phrase "Of the increase of his government":
That is, of the Prince of peace, on whose shoulders it is; which, from small beginnings, will rise to a very great pitch and height of glory; this is signified by the stone cut out of the mountain without hands; that smote the image, became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth, Daniel 2:34 and by the parable of the mustard seed, the least of all seeds, and yet, when grown up, becomes a great tree, in which the birds of the air build their nests, Matthew 13:31. [Interesting he cites the same passages I do- AP] Christ's kingdom and interest, his dominion and government, may be said to be increased, when his Gospel is spread far and near, which is called the Gospel of the kingdom, and the doctrines of it, the mysteries of the kingdom; by means of which men become subjects of it, and so his kingdom is enlarged. At first it was only preached in Judea; and then it was carried into the Gentile world, where it met with great success, and was spread to the overthrow of Paganism in the Roman empire..... et cetera.
The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.- Ps. 118:22
therefore thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: ‘Whoever believes will not be in haste.’- Isa. 28:16
The Messiah is reckoned like a cornerstone upon and around which more stones are laid in order to build an edifice (cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-8; Eph. 2:10; 1 Cor. 3:12 etc.). Building takes time.
The OT also predicts that the Messiah will initially be rejected by His people in general (e.g. Isa. 52:14; 53:1-3; Joseph who was a type of Christ was not initially recognized by his brothers in Egypt [google Joseph as a type of Christ for more parallels between them]). His acceptance by His people takes time.
See Dr. Michael Brown's Answering Your Toughest Questions Episode 22 -
"Objections based on Messianic Prophecy: The Messiah in the Torah? Daniel 9:24-27...?
https://youtu.be/hESNdHdYGbU?list=UUbINn3x-intLp88Zrf8acpg
I think Postmillers are right when they say Dispensationalists have too narrow an understanding of fulfillment when they emphasize the land promises to Israel. God promised not just Palestine, but the ENTIRE WORLD to Abraham and his seed ("...in you [Abraham] all the families of the earth shall be blessed"- Gen. 12:3b).
Hess' article does not seem to deal much with non-dispensational and non-liberal interpretations of Daniel 9:24-27.
ReplyDeleteBecause of Matthew 24:15, it seems clear that Daniel 9:24-27 includes AD 70 and the destruction of the 2nd temple, because Jesus is predicting it's total destruction in Matthew 23:36 to 24:1-3. So, that means, the Messiah being cut off (see also Isaiah 53:8, "cut off from the land of the living", although it is a different Hebrew word) is referring to Himself and His crucifixion.
70 AD = The "desolations that are determined/decreed" seems to indicate that Jesus decreed the desolations around 30 AD and they were fulfilled in 70 with the destruction of the temple.
It is interesting that in Rabbi Tovia Singer’s lecture on Daniel 9:24-27,
https://outreachjudaism.org/daniel-nines-70-weeks-audio/
he agrees with:
1. That the seventy weeks means seventy periods of seven years = 490 years
2. That that time takes us up to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and Daniel 9:26 describes the destruction of the temple
3. That the people of the prince to come are the Romans and Titus, who destroyed the temple. (70 AD)
24 “Seventy weeks [ 490 years, because "years" are clearly what is talked about in Daniel 9:1-2 and the finishing of the 70 years of captivity ] have been decreed for your people and your holy city, [ for the OT people and city of Jerusalem to become the Old covenant and replaced by the new Covenant for all nations; that Luke 24:46-49 emphasizes that the gospel has to start from Jerusalem is a connection that seems important]
to finish the transgression,
to make an end of sin,
to make atonement for iniquity,
[after the 490 years, the atonement on the cross accomplished these three descriptions]
to bring in everlasting righteousness, [ eternal righteousness is brought in when someone is justified by faith in Christ alone – Romans 3, 4, 5, Galatians]
to seal up vision and prophecy [ end of revelation with NT writings]
and
to anoint the most holy place [ or most holy one = Messiah’s anointing when baptized]
25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem [ 457 BC decree of Artaxerxes ]
until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks (49 = ? maybe time for foundation of the temple, and temple and Jews settling back in the land) and sixty-two weeks [ 49 + 62 = 483 years, which brings us to 26 AD, when Jesus was baptized or anointed] ; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.
26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off [see parallel with the suffering servant being “cut off from the land of the living” in Isaiah 53:8]
and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. [ 70 AD and destruction of the temple was decreed by Jesus in Matthew 24 in 30 Ad and fulfilled 40 years later]
And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week [ Is this the time of Jesus' ministry - anointing at baptism by the Holy Spirit, and in the middle crucified ( ?) and 3 and 1/2 years until Paul is converted and the gospel begins to really go out to the Gentiles more, maybe ?, possible]
, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering [ argument of book of Hebrews, no more sacrifices for sin] ; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed [decreed 40 years earlier], is poured out on the one who makes desolate.
Of course some of the other details, the Rabbi does not agree with the Christian interpretation, but the ones he does agree with are very interesting, and give evidence of the first century Jewish followers of Jesus view and Christian interpretation.
Ken,
DeleteI believe Hess is a historic premil.
There are numerous problems taking this prophecy as something that refers to A.D. 70. The book is really about the persecution under Epiphanes. He is the one destroying the people and the temple/stopping the daily sacrifice throughout the book. To take it as something else is to ignore the context of the entire book. As for Jesus' use of it in the Olivet Discourse, it seems best to understand it as typological rather than a direct prophecy about that event, simply because the abomination of desolation in Daniel refers to Antiochus, there is no literal abomination of desolation in the destruction of Jerusalem, and it seems to have other applications for other events (2 Thes 2:3-4).
ReplyDeleteDear Hodge,
Delete>>>>>He is the one destroying the people and the temple/stopping the daily sacrifice throughout the book. To take it as something else is to ignore the context of the entire book.
I think your assertion is not supported by the book of Daniel.
I know your arguments for the conclusion you have reached because once I held that position too. I have demonstrated that they are not valid here: http://pagebin.com/aNw7M8Op
First three kingdoms are Babylon,MP and Greece. Daniel presented two little horns of same Anti-God character.
The book has enough hints to distinguish between the time of the Maccabees and time of the end. So Jesus Christ is 100% correct in his understanding of abomination of desolation.
Actually, the book itself will bear out that the first three kingdoms are Babylon, Media, and Persia. The fourth is Greece and the broken, weaker kingdom that comes from Greece is the Seleucid Empire. I have a lecture series on my blog Theological Sushi that shows that it's pretty difficult to make the book about something other than the persecution under Epiphanes. To make it about A.D. 70 is to ignore numerous indicators in the book that tell the reader what kingdoms are involved (e.g., Persia is not a weaker kingdom than Babylon, Media is. Persia rules over the entire ancient Near Eastern world as the bronze does, which makes Greece the one of iron and the Seleucid Empire a weaker kingdom broken up from the Greek Empire, etc.). I would continue to study more and reconsider your position.
DeleteJesus Christ is 100% right in his typological use of many things, including the abomination of desolation. That does not make them literal referents.
9:24 Seventy weeks are decreed/determined upon/on/against your people/Jews and upon your holy city/Jerusalem, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to 'seal up'/fulfill vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy.
ReplyDelete9:25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment/decree/word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto/until/to the/an 'anointed one'/messiah, the prince/nagid, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: it/Jerusalem shall be/stand built/rebuilt again, with street and moat, even in troublous times.
9:26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall the/an 'anointed one'/messiah be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people/Jews/Seleucids/Romans of the prince/nagid/Messiah/Anti-god that shall come shall destroy/corrupt/rebel the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof/city/prince/Jews/Seleucids/Romans shall be with a flood, and 'even unto'/until/'and to' the end shall be war; desolations/ are determined/decreed.
9:27 And he/prince/'anointed one'/Christ/Anti-God shall 'make a firm'/'confirm a'/'force a' covenant/treaty/'NT covenant' with many/Jews/Gentiles/Hellenizers/Apostles/'NT believers' for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation/offering to cease/halt/'put to end with force'; and upon the wing of abominations shall come 'one that makets desolate'/Anti-God/Epiphanes/Jews; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate/Epiphanes/Anti-god/Jews.
with this much of ambiguity and many interpretations, only one thing is clear in the scripture, that is 9:24.
By the end of 70 weeks, transgression of Jerusalem and Jews will be finished, their sins will end, reconciliation will be made for Jews and Jerusalem, everlasting righteousness will be brought, prophecy will be sealed up, and most holy will be anointed.
Steve or Engwer, can you please show me the fulfillment of the prophecy in history and can you please explain if any of your interpretation does not follow the impression given in this prophecy, on what basis it is justified?
RK wrote:
Delete"with this much of ambiguity and many interpretations, only one thing is clear in the scripture, that is 9:24."
You say that even though your interpretation of 9:24 is disputed. You assume, without argument, that your interpretation is correct on disputed issues, and you even call your interpretation "clear". Yet, you act as though disputes over other people's interpretations prove that those matters can't be resolved and you don't interact with their arguments for their interpretations.
Why would an interpretation have to be clear in order to be probable? It wouldn't. You keep framing these discussions in irrational ways that favor your desired conclusions. You ask for evidence that "necessitates" a conclusion you disagree with, that's "clear" by your standards, etc.
Furthermore, if 9:24 is all that's sufficiently clear, then how do you know that the remainder of the passage has been falsified? To justify your conclusion, you'd have to know how to interpret the remainder of the passage, including disputed portions of it.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteAnother problem with your approach is that it fails to avoid what you're trying to avoid. In my post on Daniel that I linked earlier, I concluded by referring to a similarity between Daniel's prophecies and Isaiah's. There's another sense in which the two are similar, which I didn't discuss in that previous post. I've often noted that even if we were to grant a skeptical view of Isaiah's Suffering Servant prophecy, even if we were to say for the sake of argument that Jesus' alignment with the passage is only a secondary or typological fulfillment, his alignment with the passage would still be highly evidential for Christianity. The odds are greatly against Jesus' alignment with the passage by natural means, regardless of whether he fulfills the passage in a primary or secondary manner. The implication is that something supernatural has occurred. The same is true of Daniel's prophecies, including the seventy weeks passage.
And we don't have to settle every dispute about a prophecy, such as the seventy weeks one, to know some of the details and to know that those details are unlikely to be fulfilled naturalistically. So, it's highly significant when Jesus identifies himself as the Son of Man while having extremely unusual characteristics that align so well with the Son of Man figure Daniel refers to (being perceived as Divine, yet distinct from God in some manner, etc.), announces the coming of the kingdom of God, is crucified upon the sixty-ninth sabbatical cycle after Artaxerxes' decree to rebuild Jerusalem, is widely perceived as having made a final atonement for sin, both Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed after the purported atonement, Jesus' movement expands to include billions of people around the world, the people of Israel are regathered and form a nation again, Jerusalem takes on a central role in the world, etc. You can object that some parts of some prophecies aren't clear enough, that some portions of the prophecies still haven't been fulfilled, and that you think it's unreasonable to allow large passings of time (gaps) in some parts of the prophecies. It's still highly unlikely that Daniel's prophecies would have been fulfilled as much as they have been naturalistically. You keep objecting to alleged problems with Christian interpretations of Daniel, even when what you're objecting to is less problematic than a naturalistic alternative.
One of the commentator I respect writes
Delete"The postponement of Gabriel’s 70th week
is not, therefore, an intrusion into the text of 9.24-27. On the contrary,
it is an important theological insight into the text’s message and signif-icance. It is also consistent with the backdrop to ch. 9. Between 931
and 587BC, Judah failed to observe precisely 49 Sabbatical years. So, in 587, God expelled them from their land, courtesy of the Babylonians.
Judah’s requirement to observe Sabbatical years was then suspended,
since the Judean were no longer in their own land (Lev. 25.2). No fur-ther Sabbaths were, therefore, added to the figure of 49 in the exile.
Once Judah made good on her 49 missed Sabbaths (the 49th began in 539t), she was then released from Babylon’s dominion as Babylon’s king
was judged (Jer. 25.11-12). As such, ch. 9’s chronology is predicated on
the notion of a weekly cycle which is suspended throughout a period of
judgment and exile. So, it would not seem inappropriate for the same
kind of ‘suspension of weekly cycles’ to begin in the aftermath of the
Messiah’s death."
Though I am not convinced by his explanation, it seems interesting. Just noticed this today. Please note at least now, I'm a truth seeker. I'm not trying to debunk something or prove something. Just trying to protect myself from the unjustified and claims and artificial explanations of Christians and looking for those who enlighten my understanding. It is very easy for me to get provoked by unjustified claims because I was deeply hurt by religion.
"with this much of ambiguity and many interpretations, only one thing is clear in the scripture, that is 9:24.
DeleteBy the end of 70 weeks, transgression of Jerusalem and Jews will be finished, their sins will end, reconciliation will be made for Jews and Jerusalem, everlasting righteousness will be brought, prophecy will be sealed up, and most holy will be anointed."
Actually, the sin being atoned for is being atoned by the exile, which is why Daniel expands the time of the exile in figurative sabbath years to reach all the way to the second century. The prophecy being sealed up/fulfilled is that of the prophecy concerning exile and oppression under other nations, enduring justice will be brought in when Antiochus dies, and the temple will be rededicated after its pollution by Epiphanes. You can make the prophecy something typological if you wish, or just read the first century and Jesus into it, but it certainly isn't clear to me that this has any direct connection to the first century A.D. I realize how the elements have a familiar sound in the ears of Christians, but this has led to a misunderstanding of this text by removing it from the prophecy and atonement for iniquity in the exile that Daniel is actually addressing.