[geocentrism] Re: 666
- From: Martin Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 02:44:30 -0500
On May 27, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Allen Daves wrote:
.I call on Martin to concede
Wouldn't that be a premature request, setting aside the matter of how
bold it actually is?
This is the nub of the matter: you want people to trash their
commentaries and go straight to the word, EXCEPT... that you claim
the only correct interpretation of that word is the one provided in
your charts. So, what we have, in effect, is a competition between 20
centuries of commentaries versus your new commentary that you've
assembled on your own. I see considerable humility exhibited by the
writers of commentaries in the past: even if they should disagree
about things, they maintained a Christ-honoring decorum and worked
hard not to misrepresent each others contributions. But your zeal to
canonize your charts and then call on 20 centuries of Biblical
scholarship to concede its position doesn't inspire any confidence.
Perhaps that shouldn't surprise anyone.
The function of Levites -- Bible scholars, if you will -- is laid out
in Malachi 2:7 thus: "For the priest's lips should preserve knowledge
of sacred things, and people should seek instruction from him." The
generation-to-generation preservation of biblical scholarship is part
of the Levitical function, and Jeremiah 33 makes clear that we're not
without Levites/scholars under the New Covenant (they're simply not a
hereditary office anymore, as Jeremiah explained it). So when you
advocate the mindless trashing of commentaries, this conflicts with
Malachi's perspective. Bible knowledge generally followed the growth
pattern outlined in Mark 4:28 thus: "First the blade, then the ear,
after that the full corn in the ear." Newton's comments about seeing
farther because he stood on the shoulders of giants applies to Bible
scholarship as well. The idea that God has failed to illuminate 20
centuries of Christendom's greatest scholars, but has illuminated
Allen Daves and authorized him to assert that nobody else knows what
they're talking about except Allen, is, one must admit, something of
a stretch.
So, let's just take a look at the Who's Who in Daniel 11:1
Scholarship to see how many Bible scholars hold (as I've taught for
many many rounds on this thread) that Daniel 10 through 12
constitutes a single vision all delivered in the 3rd year of Cyrus,
none of it being spoken by the angel at any earlier time. I agree
with these saints of old because they DO know what they're talking
about -- it's obvious on the face of it, right in the text, and they
and I can all see it. The blindness isn't ours, and never was --
we're not protecting some preconceived theory, but calling it the way
the text presents it.
Obviously, the translators of the New English Translation agree with
me (otherwise Allen wouldn't have spluttered in horror at their
supposedly insane footnotes).
H. J. Rose, Archdeacon of Bedford, and J. M. Fuler, Vicar of Bexley,
in The Bible Commentary (10 volumes, 1871-1881 Charles Scribners),
reprinted 1981 by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Volume 6,
page 365, also affirm that "Chapters 10 through 12 form a section of
themselves. They occupy the position naturally assigned to them by
their date (Daniel 10:1 -- "In the third year of Cyrus the king of
Persia")." The entire prophecy covering all 3 chapters was delivered
by the angel in the 3rd year of Cyrus, not the 1st year of Darius, as
explained further on page 371: "The opening verse of chapter 11 is
usually connected with 10:21, rather than with 11:2. The division
into chapters 10, 11, 12 is unfortunate and inconvenient. The whole
section forms one connected whole, and to be understood must be read
regardless of the current divisions."
Edward J. Young, Th.M. Ph.D., Professor of Old Testament at
Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, writing in his 1949
commentary "The Prophecy of Daniel" (Eerdmans, 10th printing March
1978), page 223, is headlined "Chapters 10-12. The Vision in the
Third Year of Cyrus." He treats the three consecutive chapters as all
being delivered in the 3rd year of Cyrus; none of what the angel says
was spoken years earlier in the 1st year of Darius. On pg. 231 Young
points out that verse 11:1 "really belongs with the preceding. The
Speaker now relates how He had previously been a help to Michael.
During the first year of Darius, when the overthrow of Babylonia by
Medio-Persia [sic] was effected, the Speaker had furnished to Michael
the aid and support which he needed. I stood up] -- lit., my
standing up, Unto him] -- not unto Darius but unto Michael. Thus we
learn that the overthrow of Babylon was accomplished by the Lord
working through His archangel. ... (11:2) -- The Messenger again
assures Daniel of the veracity of His message. Perhaps the word truth
reflects upon the "writing of truth" mentioned in 10:21."
In the justly acclaimed 10-volume Commentary on the Old Testament by
Keil and Delitzsch written in the 19th century (Eerdmans 1983
reprint), Vol. 9, p. 402-403, C. F. Keil asserts that Chapters 10
through 12 constitute a single prophecy: "In the third year of the
reign of Cyrus, Daniel received the last revelation regarding the
future of his people.... It consists of three parts: Chapter
10:1-11:2a, Chapter 11:2b-12:3, and Chapter 12:4-13." Later, p. 423,
Keil affirms of Daniel 11 that "The first verse of the eleventh
chapter belongs to ch. 10:21; the also I is emphatically placed over
against the mention of Michael, whereby the connection of this verse
with ch. 10:21 is placed beyond a doubt..." Keil provides an
additional second reason that affirms this correction of the bad
chapter break.
Charles H. H. Wright, Ph.D., D.D., (Williams and Norgate, London:
1906, reprinted Klock & Klock 1983), in "Studies in Daniel's
Prophecy," pg. 36 of his translation of the Hebrew, affirms in his
chapter heading for chapter 11: "Chapter XI: Hebrew -- Continuation
of preceding" and places the chapter break between 11:1 and 11:2.
The revered Matthew Henry, in his early 18th-century commentary
(MacDonald edition), Vol. 4, pg. 1095ff, asserts of Daniel 10 thus:
"This chapter and the two next (which concludes this book) make up
one entire vision and prophecy, which was communicated to Daniel for
the use of the church, not by signs and figures, as before (ch. 7 and
8), but by express words; and this was about two years after the
vision in the foregoing chapter." Note that Matthew Henry supports
my position that Daniel 9 and Daniel 11 were given several years
apart, NOT in the same year as Allen has continued to insist upon.
Charles Boutflower, in his 1923 book "In and Around the Book of
Daniel" (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London;
Macmillan, New York), reprinted 1977 by Kregel Publications, pg. 245
affirms the unity of the vision of Chapters 10 through 12 very
clearly: "The date of the prophet's last vision, given us in Chapter
10:1, viz. "the third year of Cyrus," coupled with the gracious
assurance at the close of that vision, "Go thou thy way till the
end be, for thou shalt rest and stand in thy lot at the end of the
days," are indications that the Book was finished shortly after that
vision and a little before his death." The date of the vision is 3rd
year of Cyrus, as I've insisted upon, and the vision extends from
Chapter 10 to the end of Chapter 12. Allen continues to claim that
11:1 teaches that portion of the vision was given at an earlier date,
rather than treating that verse, at the bad chapter break, as being
the ultra-brief retrospective flashback it obviously is.
H. C. Leupold's "Exposition of Daniel" (The Wartburg Press, 1949,
assigned to Augsburg Publishing House), 1969 reprint by Baker Book
House, pg. 468, commenting on Dan. 11:1, states: "Nothing could be
clearer than that this verse still belongs to what was just
considered. Only the fact that it contains a statement of time
similar to that of certain other opening verses of chapters (cf. 9:1
and 10:1) led commentators to make an unfortunate chapter division at
this point. Surely, the aim of this verse is not to mark the
revelation of this chapter as having been received in the first year
of Darius the Mede. This verse merely looks back and supplies a
thought that rounds out the last one that was uttered. The angel
had just said, 'Michael stands by me.' He now adds, 'This is quite
natural, for we both collaborate; and two years ago I helped him in
an emergency.' " As Leupold concludes, "A simple evaluation and just
a bit of confidence in the sound state of the Hebrew text would spare
the critics much confusion that arises out of the lack of patience to
discover the good order that is inherent in the Word."
Professor Zoeckler was responsible for the 1870 commentary on Daniel
appearing in Lange's Commentary on the Whole Bible (Zondervan, edited
by Philip Schaff, translated by Rev. Dr. Strong from the German,
n.d., Schaff's Foreword dated 1876), Vol. 13, pg. 223, identifies
Chapter 10-12 as a single vision delivered in the 3rd year of Cyrus
("Concerning the final vision of Daniel (chap. x-xii) as a whole"
heads the section discussing this fact). As expected, Zoeckler treats
the preface of the vision as extending from 10:1 to 11:1, as affirmed
by all the above scholars. Thus, "the first verse of chapter xi is
thus intimately connected with the last verse of chapter x; and it
was unwise to separate them." The importance of the proper resolution
of this question is revealed by Zoeckler when he discusses the
prediction of Dan. 11:2 -- "Behold, there shall stand up yet three
kings in Persia." Zoeckler says, "doubtless, after the present king,
hence after Cyrus (see chap. x.1)." In other words, the future three
kings are referenced to the 3rd year of Cyrus of 10:1, not the 1st
year of Darius of 11:1 which forms a retrospective flashback and
aside by the angel, having no relevance to the date this vision
occurred. Allen's version of events would then distort the meaning of
11:2, apart from making mincemeat of the angel's speech to Daniel.
Rev. H. Deane, in Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible
(Zondervan's 1954 edition), Vol. 5, pg. 291, says of Daniel 11:2
thus: "Compare chapter 10:21. This is the commencement of the
revelation promised in chapter 10:14."
In Volume 2, Part 2 of Eerdman's reprint of the Jamieson, Fausset &
Brown "Exegetical and Critical Commentary on the Whole Bible," the
same fact is observed at page 443. The unity of the vision and its
date of deliverance is presaged at page 440: "The tenth chapter is
the prologue; the eleventh, the prophecy itself; and the twelfth, the
epilogue."
Dr. F. W. Farrar, in the Expositor's Bible (Baker's 1982 reprint of
the 1903 version), Vol. 4, page 423, says of Daniel 10 through 12:
"The remaining section of the Book of Daniel forms but one vision, of
which this chapter is the introduction or prologue. It is dated in
the third year of Cyrus." As I said.
Ernst W. Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament arrives at
the same conclusion,and makes it explicit in his multi-volume work,
"The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament" (Mack Publishing's 1972
reprint of the 1871 edition, posthumous). as does E.B. Pusey in his
1864 book, "Daniel the Prophet." This chronology for the giving of
the one vision spanning chapters 10 through 12 of Daniel goes back at
least as far as St. Jerome (hey, how about my Roman Catholic brothers
on this forum sticking up for Jerome's depth of scholarship here a
bit? How often does a Protestant commend Jerome like this? Step up
to the plate, boys!).
So, I find the above scholarship compelling. It comports with the
text as it stands written. It doesn't require massive theological
override of the text, which Allen has inexplicably argued for. I
thought we had resolved this issue, but he either misunderstood what
he was admitting to or has forgotten what he wrote to me.
In any event, Allen, I see no reason to concede. I emphatically deny
that the prophecy of 11:1 was given in the same year that 9:1 was
given, and the vast weight of conservative Biblical scholarship is on
my side. I'm personally convinced based on direct examination of the
two chapters, in context, and I also heartily agree with the
consensus of scholarship and its accumulated weight. For the record,
this was my view BEFORE consulting the commentaries on the matter. I
just read from Chapter 10 through 11 to see what was going on, and
note the fact that the angel was in mid-speech at the chapter break.
That's all I had to discern to recognize that 11:1 does not insert a
grossly anomalous anachronism into the giving of the angel's vision
to Daniel.
The controlling timeframe is established at chapter 10:1 for the
entire three-chapter-long vision. The vision was given, in all
likelihood, on a single day, several years after the 70 weeks
prophecy was given to Daniel, and not in the same year as the earlier
prophecy, despite your repeated insistence on this by baldly quoting
11:1 without considering what it actually says and who is saying it
and why. THAT is why I provided the excellent NET translation. You
can see the truth without looking at the translator's footnotes. And,
I might add, without slandering the footnotes and their authors.
Slander is a serious sin in Scripture.
In any event, the bottom line here is straightforward.
No concession.
Martin
Other related posts:
