This is not the venue for a primer in prophesy however I will side bar with you using the Inbox.
umm actualy if you are using this to support your argument here this is exactly the place for it
Since accurate prophesy could be considered as evidence for the existence of God, discussing prophesy seems (to me) to be relevant to the topic. Albeit in a way that could make the premise moot?
Sorry Mike, there was no Reply button for your previous post - RE:
Your theory is that the Jews have rewrote the pass to collaborate their monotheism. However at least as for back as the sixth Century B.C.E. it was cast in granite. Moreover the the words of many prophets were cast in granite. These words prophesy into the future. They speak of captivity, destruction of the Temple.
The entire area of the Bible regarding prophecy of the temple's destruction, was written in 600 BCE, during the Babylonian captivity, long after the destruction - not all that hard to make a prophecy come true ipso facto.
Wait a second - I'm getting a prophetic vision! - President John F. Kennedy will be assassinated on November 22, 1963! Now, let's just wait and see if it comes true. OMG, it already did?! I'm a prophet!!!!!
Fair enough, here is a introduction:http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/a-rendering-of-the-last-...
It is incredibly difficult to have any kind of conversation when you do not produce the archeological evidence. So you say a 6th century document corroborates the LXX. What about the LXX. We know the LXX was not written in the 6th century... Do you realize the 6th century is before the fall of Jerusalem? Jerusalem fell in 587. The LXX wasn't made until after Alexander the Great made Greek the lingua franca. What you are saying is so vague that it makes no sense. You are saying that a pre-exile aramaic document exists that corroborates something that wasn't even written yet (the LXX)... Jeremiah hadn't even been written by the time this Aramaic document is supposed to have been dated.
You say it was cast in granite. What is the name of the inscription? If it is a manuscript what is the archival name of the document?
Let's set the record straight. The Aramaic text was not found until recently. Thus one would argue your point that the LXX was a collaboration and fabrication. However the Aramaic text that was recently found collaborated the LXX. Thus the LXX is not a collaborated fabrication synthesizing monotheism.
Michael, what aramaic text? How do I even know your source accurately is representing that text if I don't know the archival name of the manuscript or inscription? What kind of a vague defense is that?
The LXX is the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. It is not an original document to itself. It is merely a translation of the Hebrew. Why you even brought in the Septuagint to a discussion of Hebrew documents confounds me entirely because it is irrelevant.
We have the source material for the LXX at Qumran in the Dead Sea scrolls. There are two different hebrew Bible variations found in Qumran. The one on which the LXX is based, and the Maesoretic Text (MT) one on which the KJV is based...
So please, provide the name of whatever the heck you are talking about, otherwise how do I know it isn't a forgery?
As of late we have fragments of Daniel written in Aramaic that predate the Hellenistic era and the time of the alleged doctoring by Hellenistic Jewish sources.
Scholars have shown that the fragments are grammatically indicative of the 7th Century BCE. Daniel is inerrant when predicting the succession of Empires over the course of many centuries, that impact Israel. Moreover it's inerrancy has been noted when forecasting the exact amount of years between King Artaxerxes giving the order to rebuild and restore Jerusalem and the coming of the Messiah ( Yeshua the Anoint)
I contend you are misinterpreting the data. Perhaps it shows that it was compiled before the 2nd century, but that does not prove it was written in the 6th century.
The only thing that could be dated to the 6th century would be a stone inscription. The likelihood that fragments could have survived is next to nothing. The Dead Sea scrolls are falling apart and have to be sewn in order to preserve them. Without anything to go with, this is looking pretty shaky.
micheal lets look at some of the other points which show daniel was written after the 6th century bce. But apart from that even if those fragments where conclusive in showing it was written at a way older date( they are not ) they are still only fragments that have nothing to do with the prophecies. it is so easy to take an old story and add so called prophecies to it that have already come true to it at a later date( if you dont believe me do some research on mother shipton). for something you called set in stone your hypothesis is as full of holes as a colander
The text contains a number of Greek words; yet the Greek occupation of the area did not occur until the 4th century BCE.
One of the musical instruments mentioned in Daniel 3:5 and in subsequent passages did not exist until developed in 2nd century BCE Greece.
Daniel 1:4 refers to the "Chaldeans" as a priestly class in Babylon. This term did not attain this meaning until much later than the 6th century.
About 180 BCE, Jeshua ben Sira listed the heroes of the Jewish faith, including "Enoch, Noah and Abraham through to Nehemiah;" Daniel is not mentioned - presumably because Jeshua is unaware of him. This would indicate that the book of Daniel was written after that time.
Chapter 12 discusses the dead being resurrected, judged, and taken to either heaven and hell. At the time of Daniel, the Jews believed that all persons went to Sheol after death. The concept of heaven and hell was introduced centuries later by the Greeks. It did not appear in Israel until the time of the Maccabean revolt.
Prior to Daniel 11:40, the author(s) has been recording past events under the Babylonian, Median, Persian and Greek empires. In Daniel 11:40-45, he really attempts to predict the future. He prophesizes that a king of the south (of the Ptolemaic dynasty) will attack the Greeks in Judea, under Antiochus. The Greeks will win, will lay spoil to all of northeast Africa, and return to Judea where Antiochus will die. The end of history will then occur. The author(s) appeared to be a poor psychic because none of these events actually happened. Antiochus did die in 164 BCE, but it was in Persia.
I have to qualify what I said. you are correct the fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls can't possibly date to the the 6th Century BCE. what I should have said is that they are copied from earlier works that go back to that date based on a linguistical study of the recently found fragments. The Biblical Archeological Review had a nice article which I have failed to find. However the following link basically concludes that same with the existing fragments at hand: