by itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat 52 Replies latest watchtower bible
CA: So that article clearly explain why the majority of scholars oppinion does not matter, but the oppinion of a certain segment of scholars DO matter? You know, the double standard thing you got going?
And does it explain how the majority of textual scholars agree with you? You know, that assertion i am calling you out on?
You obviously did not read the article. It does not say that those that hold to a Maccabeean theory do not matter. That comment seems to be coming from someone that didn't read it. It gives the claims and reason for those claims from those that believe in a late date of Daniel. It gives a reason that other scholars do not feel that way. It gives both sides. It does not say that the other side "doesn't matter".
Read it...and then talk. It'll be a more intelligent conversation that way. Cheer up, bohm.
Why should i read it, it has nothing to do with what i am calling you out on.You made a claim about the oppinion of the majority of textual scholars. Please back up that claim, as it is now, it is just a baseless assertion on your part. Either you have facts to back up the claim, or you dont. If they are in that article, please cite them, otherwise I am going to continue calling you a liar.
And at any rate, your double standard still stands. Why should i form my oppinion based on what a SEGMENT of all scholars believe, and not care what the MAJORITY of scholars believe? You havent explained that, and you cant -- You guys are so predictable, you are on your high horses and shoddy scholarship and when you get called out on being factually wrong, you make it about the other persons emotions; que you telling me i am angry.
I am not, i am amused. You are a funny thing, you believe a magic creature watch over you and hate it when you lie, yet your ego is so big you dont want to let facts and double standards get in your way to validate your belief that creature exist.
Well maybe I should hire you as my editor so I don't say "the majority of textual scholars" instead of "conservative textual scholars". Seems like your anger towards a god gets in the way of your being able to debate OT history. You are amused that I am a "funny thing", but you're not angry. And yet you cannot debate a single detail about this subject. Only deal in generalizations and accusations. You can only say that I am on some sort of high horse for arguing in favor of an early date. But I suppose you haven't educated yourself on this subject. I get it. So I'll bid you goodbye and goodnight. Cheer up, bohm.
CA: Well maybe I should hire you as my editor so I don't say "the majority of textual scholars" instead of "conservative textual scholars"
FINALLY you are willing to agree to the most basic fact. After one page of me continuing to point it out to you. Good job CA!
So now we are down to the oppinion of CONSERVATIVE scholars, i can then tell you i am as persuaded by their oppinion as you are of the majority of muslims scholars when they tell you muhammed flew into the sky on a horse and the quran could only be dictated by god.
And you should really quit the passive-agressive tone; you make an error, you get called out, you try to hide it by changing the topic and it didnt work. You should think about what that says about you.
i can then tell you i am as persuaded by their oppinion as you are of the majority of muslims scholars when they tell you muhammed flew into the sky on a horse and the quran could only be dictated by god.
Good! I examine those arguments too. Instead of attacking the person, I'd rather examine the evidence. I don't write off a scholar or simply believe them whether they are conservative or liberal. I examine the evidence. That is what I was attempting to do before you derailed the thread. I assume your next response will be something more about ME instead of an attempt to discuss the evidence or lack of evidence for a late date writing of Daniel. Am I right?
Also, I didn't hide anything. You were going off topic in accusing me of misspeaking, of which I admited to. I was staying ON topic in trying to discuss the dating of Daniel, of which you have added nothing to but accusations and generalizations. Cheer up, bohm. No one is attacking you. I was attempting to have an intelligent conversation, and was halted by you bringing up that I mis-said a word as I was typing.
What does it say about me?
AC: " Also, I didn't hide anything. You were going off topic in accusing me of misspeaking, of which I admited to. "
lol, you only admitted to it after i had pointed out it 5 times. How is it off topic to point out you are not only making a silly argument (argument from authority), you are also saying something false?
hahaha
you can tell me to cheer up again and I shouldt be mad at santa, god and the easter bunny.
In my last post I said: I assume your next response will be something more about ME instead of an attempt to discuss the evidence or lack of evidence for a late date writing of Daniel. Am I right?
Good to see I'm reading you right...
you can tell me to cheer up again and I shouldt be mad at santa, god and the easter bunny.
Good...why would you be mad at them? Cheer up, bohm!
Anyway, anyone want to bring this back to topic.
Most specialists in Second Temple Judaism (nearly all I have seen) agree that Daniel was completed in the second century BC. This is a definite consensus view in contemporary scholarship. Those who maintain a sixth century BC date are mainly evangelical/apologetic scholars whose hold to the inerrancy of Scripture from my experience...who are the textual scholars who maintain a sixth century date? One should also point out that the book is a probable composite (much like other apocalypses of the day, such as 1 Enoch), and the Aramaic portion is probably older than the Hebrew (which is more distinctly concerned with the Maccabean crisis). I am comfortable with a date in the third century BC for most of the Aramaic apocalypse (with some material going back to the Persian period), and a date in the 160s BC for the Hebrew apocalypse. I think there is also good evidence that a separate version of ch. 4-6 circulated in the third century BC.
It should be noted that the book itself points to a date in the second century BC when it was published. It claims that the book is to be unsealed in the "time of the end". The Maccabean crisis is depicted as leading directly into the promised kingdom of God. This is not an unsealing of understanding or some other mumbo-jumbo, but a literal unsealing of a secret book (as it is in Revelation 21-22, for John of Patmos was not supposed to seal up and hide his vision but make it available to others right away). This was an internal plot device, common to Second Temple pseudepigrapha, that explains why no one has seen this purportedly ancient prophecy before.
So, Leolaia, do you believe that Ezekiel was written after the 2nd century as well?
