Steve_S

David and Last Daze banned from topic.

InChrist and Shiloh removed from thread for these posts.

Cobalt removed from the thread for this post.

Diaste has been removed from the thread for this statement.

Daniel 11:36 has been banned from the thread for this statement.

This topic is so far off from what the OP actually asked at this point as to be unrecognizable. Locked.

I just totally wiped the last few pages of this thread. Please stop bringing stuff from other threads over to new threads. Leave things in other threads in those other threads.

Secretopposumcabal has been banned from the thread.

I believe this one has ran its course. Locked.

Poster removed from thread for this comment.

Shiloh was removed from the thread for this post.

I believe this one has ran its course.

This one has ran its course.

I cleaned this thread up a little bit. If you'd still like me to lock it, shoot me a PM.

Indeed, me either. That's one of those things that you can read past 100 times. The more I study the scriptures the more I realize that every single detail has value.

Through the years, particularly since the reformation, but even going back to the third century A.D. (at least), there have been several attempts to claim that the book of Daniel was written by either more than one person or by one person in the 2nd century B.C., about 450 years after it was actually written (this is probably the majority viewpoint amongst liberal biblical scholars and secular historians). This particular method of interpretation is generally referred to as "late dating" and also occurs with other prophetic books and prophecies within the bible (liberal scholars and secular historians are notorious in their attempts to late date of parts of Isaiah, for instance). The reason this happens is, of course, the accuracy of the prophecy contained within the scriptures. With regards to the book of Daniel specifically, this seems to have gotten its start with a man named Porphyry who was a secular philosopher from Tyre. He read the book of Daniel and came to the realization that he was reading an incredibly accurate and specific accounting of world history (particularly Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 11). The main problem, though, from his perspective, was that the majority of what he was reading was believed to have been written 800 years earlier and anywhere from a few years to several centuries before some of these highly specific events took place. It was written from a purely prophetic perspective, having this history being recounted through dreams and visions of the future, not the past, the meanings of which were then interpreted for the reader in some cases. He decided that such accurate prophecy was impossible and wrote a document entitled "against the Christians", basically making the claim that at least parts of Daniel was written during and/or after the Maccabean period of Israelite history. Fast forward about 1400 years or so and the first liberal theologians of the post reformation era are emerging. Many of them take Porphyry's ideas and run with them. In fact, there are those who claim Christ both then and today who do not believe that the book of Daniel (or at least some of it) was written by Daniel. First of all, there is a pretty significant theological problem with that, as Christ Himself agreed that the book of Daniel was written by Daniel: Mat 24:15 "Therefore when you see the 'ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), Every Christian who may have been or may be under the teaching of one of these types of people or may simply have read some things on the internet and are considering whether or not there is any truth to it, should strongly consider that Christ Himself spoke on this matter and did so in concrete terms. Moving past this very obvious and important fact, I think one interesting person to look at regarding this controversy is Belshazzar. For several decades, amongst those in the more liberal theological circles that were forming in the late 18th and early 19th century in the United States and Europe, Belshazzar was simply a name in the book of Daniel attributed to the king of Babylon at the time of its fall to the Persians. He was the man who ordered the temple articles be used during the party that he was throwing in the "writing on the wall" chapter (Daniel 5). In fact, they did not believe he ever existed - at all. A man named Nabonidus was known to be the king of Babylon according to the historical record and that man was not even present in Babylon when it fell. They believed that whoever wrote Daniel in the 2nd century B.C. was so clueless as to what happened in history, that they simply made up a name for the king of Babylon and concocted the whole writing on the wall story, then used the same person being in his first year for the introductory verse of Daniel 7. In the mid 19th century a Babylonian cylinder was dug out of the ground at Ur in southern Iraq. Cylinders such as these were literal cylinders that were encircled in writing. This particular cylinder is believed to have been buried during a ceremony dedicating a repaired temple in in the early 6th Century B.C. On this cylinder a Babylonian king, Nabonidus, writes a prayer for his first born son... Belshazzar. A clay tablet, the text of which was translated and published in the early 20th century and has been written on several times since, called the Verse Account of Nabonidus, though not actually written by Nabonidus himself, records that he basically entrusted the kingship to his first born son while he was away in Tema. It turns out that Nabonidus spent a majority of the time that he was king away from Babylon, setting up his headquarters elsehwere and leaving Belshazzar as king in Babylon, a common arrangement in antiquity known as a coregency. There is actually what could be considered an allusion to this in Daniel 5. Dan 5:29 Then Belshazzar gave the command, and they clothed Daniel with purple and put a chain of gold around his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. Many expositors believe that the reason he was made third ruler in the kingdom rather than second, is that the top two positions were already taken by father and son. I tend to agree with this, even though it could be considered marginally conjectural. At any rate, one would think that this would have been quite a revelation for those who were late dating Daniel. Here you have the bible being the only known book that mentions that the king of Babylon was Belshazzar. This endured for 2500 years. Not once in any historical record (that I know of) is Belshazzar mentioned and the cylinder that had his name on it in Ur was believed to have remained buried from the time it was written, which would've actually been before the writing of Daniel 5 and Daniel 7. So, since the argument before was that the fake Daniel was uninformed and made up the name Belshazzar, it would be reasonable to assume that the inverse would now be true - nobody in the second century B.C. would've known about Belshazzar, because his name simply was not present in the historical record at the time. It was not present in the historical record outside of the bible until the mid 19th Century A.D. As such, it would stand to reason, that this would be pretty solid proof that Daniel was indeed written when it claims to have been. Only someone present at the time would've known that Belshazzar was acting as king in Babylon while his father was spending the majority of his rule in another city in another region. Unfortunately, of course, these people simply changed their approach. Without going too deeply into that, the discovery of Belshazzar as a historical person did not much change the opinion of anyone on the liberal side of this argument (though I'm sure there are exceptions). What this episode ultimately goes toward proving is that those who wish to reject the legitimacy of scripture are doing so from a position of, at the least, skepticism about the veracity of things like inspiration and prophecy. At most, from a position of being wolves amongst the flock, trying to sow doubt and damage the faith of believers. For us here in this group, it is just one more amongst the many, many pieces of evidence that confirm that God's word is trustworthy. Ultimately, though, our faith is in Christ and this world is most definitely not our home. While finding evidence that substantiates the scriptures is certainly a good thing... even still, had men not dug at Ur and found Belshazzar's name, with our faith being rooted in Christ, we would still have just as much reason to trust the word.

Let's remember to keep it civil please. Also remember that people are allowed to disagree with the OP openly on the forums. It's a discussion forum after all.

Act 17:10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Act 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. The bereans were certainly praised for searching the scriptures every day. 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NKJV) Paul also says here, explicitly, that to be a complete man of God, understanding of the scriptures is necessary, that it is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness, and to be thoroughly equipped for every good work. The most literal understanding of the greek underlying this phrase "given by inspiration of God" here - theopneustos - is literally "God breathed." Why on earth would people avoid diligently studying the God breathed word that has been preserved for us by God himself. Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever."

I believe this one to have ran its course.

Locked.

I think this one needs to rest a while, as it's nowhere near the vicinity of the OP at this point.

I believe this one has ran its course.

This thread was cleaned and two members getting personal with each other removed from it. Any responses to their posts were also removed.

This one seems to have ran its course.

Locked for review.