Biblical Prophecies written BEFORE fulfillment

by brotherdan 64 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  brotherdan

  There is general agreement among scholars that Daniel's revelations are actually vaticinia ex eventu or prophecies after the event

  Nope. Not good enough, NVL. The book of Daniel was spoken of in Jewish works that were written in the 2nd century such as the Maccabees. It was also in the Septuagint which began to be translated in the third century bc. Also, fragments of Daniel were found among the Dead See Scrolls, which are dated around 100 BC.

  Some, like you said, date the book in the 2nd century, but this cannot be the case either. Belshazzar was the ruler of Babylon when Babylon fell. Herodotus, Zenophon, and Berossus (5th,4th,and 3rd centuries respectively) did not know about the existance of Belshazzar at that time. If Daniel was written in the 2nd century, how would he have knowledge about this when earlier authors did not? Also, there were the prophecies fulfilled AFTER the 2nd century.
• 

  sabastious

  The book of Daniel was spoken of in Jewish works that were written in the 2nd century such as the Maccabees.

  So you are using a reference to the book as evidence for it's validity? The book might have been altered or added to. Fact is you gotta have a real manuscript or it's a wash, can't prove anything.

  -Sab
• 

  brotherdan

  All the available facts that we have only point to the writing taking place BEFORE Christ's time. Anything else just tries to justify HOW he got it all right when it was written before hand.

  The argument is, "Well...it could have been altered." That's an almost impossible thing to probe or disprove. What got left out? What was altered? You can say that about ANY historical document. You could say that about Homers Oddysey, Gilgamesh, etc...
• 

  notverylikely

  Nope. Not good enough, NVL. The book of Daniel was spoken of in Jewish works that were written in the 2nd century such as the Maccabees. It was also in the Septuagint which began to be translated in the third century bc. Also, fragments of Daniel were found among the Dead See Scrolls, which are dated around 100 BC.

  Dan, you have to understand how this works. You are making the extrordinary claims. It is on you to provide the relevant supporting evidence.

  For instance, you probably know this, but 165 BC WAS the 2nd century. If you want to discuss the Maccabees would be perfectly acceptable, you just NOW have to back up and show documentation on that, then show that the portions quoted are in fact the specific prophecies (not an earlier version, like what the WT does when they need to update prophecy). No one is suggesting that at least parts of Daniel aren't old, but there is no specific evidence that the specific prohecies concern that are NOT interprative are from that earlier date.

  With specific regard to the Maccabees, that work is from 100BCE. Check the wiki:

  The apocryphal book of Sirach, written about 180 BCE, contains a long section (chapters 44-50) in praise of "famous men" from Jewish history that does not include Daniel; I Maccabees, composed about 100 BCE, repeats much of that list with the addition of Daniel and the three youths in the fiery furnace, leading to the conclusion that these stories were added sometime after 180 BCE

  Again, you are making the extraordinary claim, you must provide concrete evidence that rises to a much higher standard that speculation and interprative prophecy.
• 

  Leolaia

  Actually this is a good example of how later interpretation can create the application to events that "fulfill" the oracle. See Doug Mason's recent thread on this. With respect to what you've written here, I could note a few things: 1) This is not a prophecy of "when the Messiah would come", it is an oracle concerned with how long the Temple and the city of Jerusalem would remain in a state of disgrace (culminating with the desolation of the Temple described in the preceding chapter and in ch. 11), 2) There isn't one "messiah" (anointed one, i.e. the high priest of the Temple) but two, with the first arriving at the beginning of the 62 weeks and with the second departing at the end of the 62 weeks, 3) The oracle expands Jeremiah's original 70 years into 490 years on account of the sevenfold "curse" written in the Law of Moses, and the author starts the 490 years with the "word to restore and rebuild" Jerusalem; this indicates that the "word to restore and rebuild" was not sometime later than the putative time of writing (the first year of Darius the Mede) but prior to it, at the start of Jeremiah's seventy years, 4) The "word to restore and rebuild" is in fact a near verbatim allusion to Jeremiah, which contained exactly such a promise by the "word of YHWH" and in v. 2 the author already refers to "the word of YHWH given to Jeremiah the prophet", 5) It is thus not a novel prophecy that Jerusalem and its Temple would be restored but a repetition of Jeremiah's, 6) The 360-day Jewish schematic calendar was fixed to equinoxes and solstices and thus did not lose 5 days a year as your computation requires, 7) There is no reference to crucifixion per se in the oracle, 8) the events you attribute to Titus correspond to the last half-week of the 70 weeks which does not fit into your chronological scheme unless one postpones the 70th week (a contrivance imposed on the text from interpretation), 9) The Christian interpretation also ignores the exact correspondence between the "people of a coming ruler" in the seventy weeks oracle and the "forces of the king of the north" in ch. 11 (which relates to the historical actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes), and 10) the oracle was most likely written during the Maccabean period (not in 538 BC) as most commentators recognize.
• 

  sabastious

  My argument isn't "well it could have been altered."

  My argument is for Daniel to be a work of TRUE prophecy it better be able to be verified without doubt. This cannot be done.

  Your God is playing games with us and I don't believe God plays mind games with us.

  He is straight forward. If his prophecies cannot be verified without doubt then they are false until verified.

  -Sab
• 

  brotherdan

  Lets say it WAS written in the 2nd century BC, NVL. I'll conceed if you'd like. It still prophesied about when Messiah would be killed.For one thing, I don't view wikipedia as a valid referrence work. Neither does any college proffesor.

  However, even in wiki, it says that the Macabees referr to Daniel. And it was written BEFORE Jesus death.

  I don't see what the issue is here. He described Jesus death and the attack on Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD and even gave the specific dates.
• 

  brotherdan

  There isn't one "messiah" (anointed one, i.e. the high priest of the Temple) but two, with the first arriving at the beginning of the 62 weeks and with the

  second departing at the end of the 62 weeks

  I've never read this, Leolaia...
• 

  notverylikely

  All the available facts that we have only point to the writing taking place BEFORE Christ's time. Anything else just tries to justify HOW he got it all right when it was written before hand.

  Right, but that's irrelevant with respect to prophecies you mentioned that happened such as destruction and rebuilding hundreds of years before Christ.

  The argument is, "Well...it could have been altered."

  No, it WAS altered.

  There exists a broad consensus among scholars that the legendary stories of chapters 1-6 are almost certainly older than the visions in chapters 7-12. [81] The wide differences between the oldest manuscripts of chapters 4-6 suggests that these chapters originally circulated separately from the rest of the book and may have been transmitted orally, [82] and it is clear that the stories and visions that make up the book as we now have it were selected from a wider corpus of Daniel literature available to the author(s). [83]

  Emphasis mine. Wide differences. Alterations. Changes.
• 

  sabastious

  I don't view wikipedia as a valid referrence work.

  Then don't trust wiki, trust the citations it POINTS you to.

  -Sab