Evidence for God from Science

TESTING THE BEST

The Book of Daniel was composed about the year 165 BC. Chapter VII was one of the earliest visions or dreams of an apocalyptic nature, composed during the Maccabean revolt of the Jews against the Greeks. There are four beasts in the vision, symbolic of four world powers who would rule in Israel until the time of the end: Seleucid-Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, Western.-With thanks to Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium, Granada Publishing Co., 1970(1957), London, for a helpful overview of millennarianism over two millennia.


All these biblical verses are so arguable,
aren’t they Norman? The four beasts
have been given such different names
as men have sought/thought the millenium,
the time of the end, a golden age,
a messianic kingdom, the last days.

He would come, it said in Daniel,
with the clouds of heaven,
with power and great glory
and to the Ancient of Days...
And there was given him
dominion, and glory,
a kingdom, that all peoples,
nations and languages
should serve him.*

This is no fantasy, some obscure
revolutionary eschatology, although
it has been since 165 BC,
this is the New Jerusalem,
the kingdom of the saints,
the beginning of the kingdom,
millennarianism’s true home,
after such a tortured road,
most people got lost by the wayside.
Absorbed in some tradition or
heresy, cult, sect, ism or wasm:
egalitarian, communistic,
self-immolating, peasant revolt,
urban insurrection, all elaborating,
interpreting, vulgarizing
the apocalyptic lore to transform
and save history, in cataclysm,
in quasi-religious salvationism,
deviant medieval mysticism,
self-divinization and anarchism
in secular dress: it is not surprising
you missed it since it grew up quietly
in an orgy of violence and complexity
that would test the best as it still is doing.

Ron Price
26 September 1995


*The Bible, Book of Daniel, Chapter VII, verses 2 to 14.

Hi Ron,

Despite the glimming over that it is actually debatable whether Daniel was written in the second century BC, could you please clarify the purpose of your post above?

Thanks,
Kurieuo.

Since this sub-section of the site is devoted to "End Times," since Daniel is one of the books of the Bible concerning these End Times, since there have been a multitude of interpretations over the centuries on these end times, it seemed appropriate that a site devoted to Reigion and Science would find my posting pertinent. Of course, you are free to question the relevance of my posting. I remain, yours. -Ron Price, Tasmania.

Daniel does refer to the end times, but reading it by itself doesn't allow one to come to anything resembling a complete picture. It needs to be coupled with the rest of Scripture on the subject, including, but not limited to, the prophecies in Ezekiel, the Revelation, the Olivet Discourse, etc.

In any case, I would also disagree that the book was written in 165, but regardless, even comparing Daniel to itself, I don't think, allows one to conclude that the four beasts represent "Seleucid-Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, Western." It would be hard to argue that the four beasts bear no relationship to the four parts of Neb's statue (not considering the feet). The prophecy of chapter eight--the ram and goat, fit nicely into the context as well. But, in this chapter, we are specifically told that the goat refers to the king of Greece, a clear reference to Alexander the Great (8:21). So, to hold to your interpretation, you'd have to take the prophecy in chapter eight and totally divorce it from the prophecies in chapters two, seven, nine, ten, and eleven. I don't think you can safely do that, ESPECIALLY when the evidence for an early date is so strong and the interpretation fits extemely well.

God bless

I like the general perspective and the specific interpretations you have given for this piece of Daniel. Unfortunately, the site moderators have asked me to "look elsewhere" rather than this site to post my pieces. I was told I was "free to participate" if I wanted, but their preference was clear. So, while I appreciated your response, I have decided to post on other sites of which there are legion.-Ron Price, tasmania.

As discussed via PM, whether you decided to look elsewhere was entirely up to you. I simply provided you with some reasons for why I found some of your messages inappropriate at this discussion board. For example, the fact you have spammed your articles at other boards (as a simple Google search turns up), spamming them here as well seems rather unfruitful to me and it wouldn't do much to inspire discussions. Other than that, feel free to directly participate in discussions.

Kurieuo.

PS. Jac is a moderator too

I was recently reading a commentary on the book of Daniel. Some interesting observations:

1) The prophecy section of Daniel was written in Hebrew. This suggests that the prophecy was/is for Israel.

2) A lot of this prophecy was fulfilled during the 400 year silence between the testaments. Well, God was not entirely silent then? (Alexander the Great, Greece, Syria, Rome, Antiochus IV, 69 weeks etc)

3) Antiochus Epiphanes was a 'type' of Antichrist - A foreshadow of the Revalation beast.

4) The four sections of the statue cannot correspond to the four beasts since the four beasts exist simultaneously. Hence the four beasts are nations/ groups of nations that exist now.

5) Christ will come to reign with His 'holy ones' from Jerusalem. A strong suggestion that this will be a future Earthly Kingdom.

RGeeB wrote:1) The prophecy section of Daniel was written in Hebrew. This suggests that the prophecy was/is for Israel.

With this logic...the NT was written in Greek...of which you are not.

The 10 Commandments were written in Hebrew...and I don't know if you condone murder, adultery, worship of images...


.
.

Well BW, Daniel, originally, was written in two languages. So, looking in this context, this assumption could be true. Also, it could not be true since you pointed out that it could be flawed. I don't know

Anyway, just because the laws of Moses were written for a particular people group, does not forbid us to read into the principles and learn lessons. Thats like asking why instuctions to women are written in the Bible, since I am a man. Prophecy aids us by indicating how to live our lives in order to avoid God's curses. It also signifies when God is about to shuffle things in a major way in history.

The Hebrew assumption is just another aid to understanding prophecy. I don't know whose interpretation is right. Guess, we won't find out until they are fulfilled. Just as it was difficult for the disciples to believe that Jesus would rise from the dead.

In the Hebrew Scipture canon, Daniel is in the Writings, not the Law and the Prophets. Another reason why such an approach could be correct. Do you think this could be right in the context of prophecy?

I'm not really sure what the point you were trying to make behind the first observation, RGB. Daniel was written in Hebrew (also Aramaic with a very few Phoenician and Greek words). What do you mean by "was/is a prophecy for Israel"? I thoroughly believe that it is, but depending on what you are getting at, I may or may not agree.

Also, which part of Daniel are you specifically referring to? The major prophecies are the Beasts, the Statue, the Seventy Weeks, and the 400 years. Now, I'll say I flat disagree with your commentary that the beasts can't correspond with Neb's statue. I'd argue that it must . . . what is the argument?

In any case, I have never really understood what is so confusing about Daniel. There are really only two ways to interpret it: literal history or allegory. I always interpret the Bible literally. So, Daniel was given these visions around 600 B.C. He relayed these to the appropriate kings. The long and short is that there would be four great kingdoms described by two different visions followed by a terrible fifth kingdom ruled by the Antichrist that would be destroyed by the Messiah who would set up His own everlasting kingdom. The birth of the Messiah is placed at 483 Babylonian years from the time of the decree to rebuild the Temple, as it was, at that time, in ruins. Chapter 11 describes in detail those events that cover that 400 year gap.

You can, of course, take the book as a big allegory or a pseudograph, but that would be taking it out of context. Read as a straightforward narrative, it explains itself . . .

BTW, Bav, question for you:

If God had not said, "Thou shalt not murder," would murder still be a sin?

Jac3510 wrote:BTW, Bav, question for you:

If God had not said, "Thou shalt not murder," would murder still be a sin?

Did Cain sin?
.
.

I asked you. I think he did. The question is, do you think he did? The broader question is "Must it be forbidden in the biblical texts to be considered divinely forbidden?"

If yes, then you have to explain Cain (and other instances).

If no, then I don't think your objection to RGB holds.

I suspect you'll say "no," so I'm curious as to what your position is on the reason God provided rules against things such as murder in the texts at all?

Jac3510 wrote:I asked you. I think he did. The question is, do you think he did? The broader question is "Must it be forbidden in the biblical texts to be considered divinely forbidden?"

If yes, then you have to explain Cain (and other instances).

If no, then I don't think your objection to RGB holds.

I suspect you'll say "no," so I'm curious as to what your position is on the reason God provided rules against things such as murder in the texts at all?

It was written down to bring about transgression. To point it out.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote: It was written down to bring about transgression. To point it out.
.
.

I would say that Paul adequately addressed the issue of Cain's sin...

Romans 5

13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

...

20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The law was added so that the trespass might increase. Curious indeed...