[geocentrism] Re: 666
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 10:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?
No, Phil Ask a very good question and there may be others, I am willing to
keep exploring other issues but the one that was specifically in front of us
was Persian Kings chrono and dates of Daniel ch 9-12..I don?t ask you or anyone
else to even accept what I am saying (although I hope for your own
understanding you would) however, the arguments you make referring to footnotes
is simply circular it does not demonstrate what the text states it demonstrates
what someone thinks about the text..If we are going to digress to that then
there is no point in any attempt at discussing or understanding the text by
using the text, we need only to get as many ?scholars? that appeal to our
various views to proclaim certainty of truth?.if that is the case either the
Greek orthodox or Roman Catholic have the most scholars of any single group or
interpretation and therefore the majority wins?? Everyone has there scholars
and you can produce one for any view out there including me but
what does that have to do with certainty or Knowledge of truth?NOTGHINTG!
..truth is not measured by scholarship or the numbers of scholars if that were
true the HC/AC would also be true. It is ?scholarships? responsibility to find
truth?your scholarship is wrong not because there are more of me, but rather
because the arguments are not demonstratabel they are only assertions to
belief; nor are they consentient with scripture or handling of scripture,?the
scripture given by God not the footnotes placed by people who don?t know any
more scripture then anyone else. The argument is in error because its approach
is in error, its underlying premise is in error.. Your argument would and is
equivalent to me writing my own footnotes ( or finding footnotes I do agree
with) & asserting the truth of my position based on the footnotes so carefully
inserted into the scriptures?I am certainly qualified??.. Check out the
footnotes in the Jehovah?s witness Bibles produced by so many
scholars or the Mormons with even more biblical scholars. They have whole
books of footnotes ..Without question you can find support for your position
Just not in scripture without asserting, accepting and believing that how you
read it is correct first based on others who hold a similar or you just pick
and chose scholars for various verse that suit you??.The arguments I make come
from a ordinary reading of difficult passages. Hence I correlate them but when
correlated require no interpretation for only one meaning can be demonstrated
external of my head and the scholars and what folk think..difficult reading
yes, but there is a difference between basing the argument on correlated
scriptures that discuss the same things and the footnotes I or someone created
to support my interpretation of it regardless of how or what scripture
states?.Your argument is wrong because, although you claim scripture as
the/your ultimate authority, the ultimate authority for your argument is
found in your scholars and footnotes and interpretations not scripture.. I
call you to concede (specifically on the Persian kings and chapters arguments)
because even if you could demonstrate your argument from scripture, (which as
of yet you have not), at this point your arguments are logically invalid.
??..Circular fallacies??? ?I?m right because my footnote/ position states your
wrong??.??????
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:
