How we know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God

[txag007]

Are you curious? See Daniel chapter 9.

[CallMeIshmael]

Dude... we know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says the Bible is the word of God

[Ruddiger]

I only skimmed it.
God is named Gabriel? Who knew.

[KUJustin]

We know that Sklansky's books are written by Sklansky because the cover says so. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Just kidding, btw, for anyone who may be salivating about tearing that apart.

[MidGe]

In Daniel, there cannot be any possible reference to the bible as you know it. Wake up!

"I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it." (If Daniel couldn't understand his visions, then how could anyone else?) This is the one true prophecy in the book of Daniel: "none understood it." 8:27 [from SAB]

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude... we know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says the Bible is the word of God

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. There's more. Verses 20-27. What do they mean?

(And Gabriel is an angel of the Lord, by the way).

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you curious? See Daniel chapter 9.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you referring to a fulfilled prophecy as proof that it is God's word?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you curious? See Daniel chapter 9.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you referring to a fulfilled prophecy as proof that it is God's word?

[/ QUOTE ]
I hesitate to use the word "proof" as each should decide that on his own, but I am referring to a very specific fulfilled prophecy; one that predicts the death of Christ to the day almost 500 years beforehand, as well as the rebuilding and later destruction of Jerusalem.

[IronUnkind]

This is a difficult and controversial passage, and a skeptic will just disagree with you on the date of composition.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a difficult and controversial passage, and a skeptic will just disagree with you on the date of composition.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you read it? It has nothing to do with the date of composition.

[IronUnkind]

Yes, I read it. You don't understand what I'm saying, and I don't feel like elaborating right now. Maybe later today.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you curious? See Daniel chapter 9.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to trick us into reading the Bible? Nice try, but I only read porno.

[tolbiny]

Princess vespa: Daddy is that really you?
Lord Helmet: Of course it is my dear, i gaurentee it. Would I lie?
(vespa runs toward lord helmet disguised as her father king rolank, helmet reveals himself)
Lord hemet: Fooled you!

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Princess vespa: Daddy is that really you?
Lord Helmet: Of course it is my dear, i gaurentee it. Would I lie?
(vespa runs toward lord helmet disguised as her father king rolank, helmet reveals himself)
Lord hemet: Fooled you!

[/ QUOTE ]
Great movie!

But it doesn't apply to this thread. We're not talking about the Bible being true because it says it is true. We're talking about the Bible being true because of the fulfillment of a very specific prophecy verifiable not by the Bible, but by "secular" sources.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Princess vespa: Daddy is that really you?
Lord Helmet: Of course it is my dear, i gaurentee it. Would I lie?
(vespa runs toward lord helmet disguised as her father king rolank, helmet reveals himself)
Lord hemet: Fooled you!

[/ QUOTE ]
Great movie!

But it doesn't apply to this thread. We're not talking about the Bible being true because it says it is true. We're talking about the Bible being true because of the fulfillment of a very specific prophecy verifiable not by the Bible, but by "secular" sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

then please provide some links and explanation.

[She]

"There were over 300 Old Testament prophecies about Messiah that were fulfilled by the life of Jesus Christ." Link (http://www.bible-prophecy.com/fulfilled.htm)

[HeroInBlack]

[ QUOTE ]
I hesitate to use the word "proof" as each should decide that on his own, but I am referring to a very specific fulfilled prophecy; one that predicts the death of Christ to the day almost 500 years beforehand, as well as the rebuilding and later destruction of Jerusalem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, too bad the book of Daniel was written more than 500 years after it is claimed to have been written.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Princess vespa: Daddy is that really you?
Lord Helmet: Of course it is my dear, i gaurentee it. Would I lie?
(vespa runs toward lord helmet disguised as her father king rolank, helmet reveals himself)
Lord hemet: Fooled you!

[/ QUOTE ]
Great movie!

But it doesn't apply to this thread. We're not talking about the Bible being true because it says it is true. We're talking about the Bible being true because of the fulfillment of a very specific prophecy verifiable not by the Bible, but by "secular" sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

then please provide some links and explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.gabc.org/messages/pdfs/pdf2000/s031900.PDF

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you curious? See Daniel chapter 9.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least quote it for those of us who don't own bibles or are too dumb/lazy to look it up on the web.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you curious? See Daniel chapter 9.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least quote it for those of us who don't own bibles or are too dumb/lazy to look it up on the web.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or for those of us who did look it up, but don't see what particular passage is so awe-inspiring, because we are critical thinkers who realize that the bible was written by men, often hundreds of years after an event.

Thousands of years from now, I imagine archaeologists finding copies of our old books, and posting on the 3+3 message board:
How we know that dinosaurs were very recently alive. (http://www.amazon.com/Jurassic-Park-Michael-Crichton/dp/0345370775/sr=8-3/qid=1161361804/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/103-8041998-6974234?ie=UTF8)

~MagicMan

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hesitate to use the word "proof" as each should decide that on his own, but I am referring to a very specific fulfilled prophecy; one that predicts the death of Christ to the day almost 500 years beforehand, as well as the rebuilding and later destruction of Jerusalem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, too bad the book of Daniel was written more than 500 years after it is claimed to have been written.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Because the only other option is that the Bible is true?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you curious? See Daniel chapter 9.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you referring to a fulfilled prophecy as proof that it is God's word?

[/ QUOTE ]
I hesitate to use the word "proof" as each should decide that on his own, but I am referring to a very specific fulfilled prophecy; one that predicts the death of Christ to the day almost 500 years beforehand, as well as the rebuilding and later destruction of Jerusalem.

[/ QUOTE ]

alright searching for info on this I came across this page

false prochecy in the book of daniel (http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/daniel.html)

about halfway down the page it goes into detail about the problems with the end of Daniel chapter 9..

I'm not saying that this is a trustworthy source or anything, but there are a lot of criticisms of this prophecy...this is just one of the pages about its problems..and many of the ciriticisms seem valid to me

also, I believ that the actual time that Daniel was written is disputed..which is a problem for obvious reasons..

and even if the time is accurate, wouldn't prophecy itself influence its fullfillment?

also here's a page that explains the prophecy, although I can't find any info responding to common criticisms of the prophecy

prophecy in daniel (http://www.redmoonrising.com/daniel.htm)

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you curious? See Daniel chapter 9.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least quote it for those of us who don't own bibles or are too dumb/lazy to look it up on the web.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


[/ QUOTE ]

for those curious.."weeks" is taken to mean "weeks of years" although the translations that allow this is of much dispute

[IronUnkind]

Here is something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks) .

[kurto]

Txag's idea of proof never ceases to amaze me.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Txag's idea of proof never ceases to amaze me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's in the bible! *And* his heart! What more proof do you need? Sheesh.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you curious? See Daniel chapter 9.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to trick us into reading the Bible? Nice try, but I only read porno.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry, plenty of hot girl-on-dad action in the bible.

[txag007]

Wow. There is more than one way to interpret the Bible.

Your responsibility is to determine which interpretation is more accurate.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
"There were over 300 Old Testament prophecies about Messiah that were fulfilled by the life of Jesus Christ." Link (http://www.bible-prophecy.com/fulfilled.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]

Then again, maybe the life of Jesua Christ as told by the gospels is a work of fiction that was writtten so as to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament. Maybe the Old Testament was altered to fit the life of Jesus. Any way you look at it, proving the Bible is the word of God bye referring to the Bible is circular reasoning.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. There is more than one way to interpret the Bible.

Your responsibility is to determine which interpretation is more accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused, what are you talking about?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Then again, maybe the life of Jesua Christ as told by the gospels is a work of fiction that was writtten so as to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament. Maybe the Old Testament was altered to fit the life of Jesus.

[/ QUOTE ]
The first century church experienced exponential growth while other religions eventually died out. Were these people stupid?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then again, maybe the life of Jesua Christ as told by the gospels is a work of fiction that was writtten so as to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament. Maybe the Old Testament was altered to fit the life of Jesus.

[/ QUOTE ]
The first century church experienced exponential growth while other religions eventually died out. Were these people stupid?

[/ QUOTE ]

Were teh majority of the new christians jewish? I don't believe that they were. I read one of the links provided txag - before we get into the nitty gritty of the words, what evidence is there to support the claim that these words were written ~500 B.C. This is a point that your entire argument (or that of the website's design) rests upon.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you curious? See Daniel chapter 9.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least quote it for those of us who don't own bibles.

[/ QUOTE ]In almost every hotel room, you will open the drawer beside your bed and find a Bible there, put in place by those very determined folks, the Gideons.

What other book would we want to have by our hotel bedside, I often wondered.

(What other book we'd want to know it'll be there, by every hotel bedside. I'd go for poetry, perhaps, but by whom?)

Mickey Brausch

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
what evidence is there to support the claim that these words were written ~500 B.C.

[/ QUOTE ]
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1948, a portion of the book of Daniel was discovered that supported that date.

[FortunaMaximus]

Who else but Shakespeare?

It's got everything 'cept gunfire.

Oh, man. A world where Bardism is the dominant religion. That'd be wonderful. Where to find that... Ah. A few seats, a raised stage, some decent velvet...

You make your own stage.

[Mickey Brausch]

Good call.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hesitate to use the word "proof" as each should decide that on his own, but I am referring to a very specific fulfilled prophecy; one that predicts the death of Christ to the day almost 500 years beforehand, as well as the rebuilding and later destruction of Jerusalem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, too bad the book of Daniel was written more than 500 years after it is claimed to have been written.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.harvardhouse.com/Daniel_date-written.htm

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hesitate to use the word "proof" as each should decide that on his own, but I am referring to a very specific fulfilled prophecy; one that predicts the death of Christ to the day almost 500 years beforehand, as well as the rebuilding and later destruction of Jerusalem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, too bad the book of Daniel was written more than 500 years after it is claimed to have been written.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.harvardhouse.com/Daniel_date-written.htm

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Naturalist's views for dating the book of Daniel are based on false assumptions about prophecy. Since we can verify Daniel's prophetic ideas came true, then Daniel's words appear to come from outside time-space. The date for writing the book of Daniel must be pushed back to match the text and linguistic style of the 5th century BCE.

[/ QUOTE ]

umm wtf, how is this evidence

as for the style of language arguments..their analogies offer no argument for the dating of daniel..we know that people write in different styles at different time..that's all they showed...

they basically say..we think that they style of language points to 6th century BCE..and they say that is points to much later...we're right, they're wrong...

seriously give us some actual evidence

[ QUOTE ]
Evidence No. 4: Josephus called Daniel, ". . . one of the greatest of the prophets [Antiquities Book 10, Chapter 11, paragraph 7 Search for "GREATEST OF THE PROPHETS on the linked site"] because Daniel's prophecies are "time-oriented" and reveal "WHEN" future events would occur. Why did Josephus hold such a high view of Daniel?

Since Josephus lived in the years 37 to 100 CE, he is closer to reality than modern scholars, who are more than 2,000 years removed from the biblical culture. Since the study of Daniel shows that modern scholars are biased against the reality of prophecy at the 98.5% confidence level, Josephus' view of Daniel appears to be correct.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm gonna go ahead an take the modern scholars over Josephus..there have been insane amount of people who swear by prophets and think they are real..there are plenty today..why are we trusting Josephus to at his word?

[ QUOTE ]
Evidence No. 8: Jesus' life meets Daniel's prophecy about a Messiah that would be killed. Jesus fulfilled Daniel's prophecy by being crucified (supported by numerous sources). Based on Daniel, after the Messiah's death, Jerusalem and the temple were to be destroyed. It is apparent that Jesus knew and understood the book of Daniel. It would only be expected that Jesus would foretell of the temple and Jerusalem's destruction. Christians accept all these facts as the basis for believing Jesus fulfilled Daniel's "time-oriented" prophecy. It would be expected that Jesus would foretell of the temple and Jerusalem's destruction before those events were to occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, how is this evidence?

it seems like they're saying...because jesus fulfilled the prophecy x days after the prophecy says he will, it must have been written x days before jesus fulfilled the prophecy!!..wtf

I don't know when it was written to be quite honest..but this didn't convince me either way

[PLOlover]

Well the bible tells us how to avoid clogged arteries, it tells us not to eat animal fat which means no hot dogs and hamburgers and stuff.

That's good enough for me to believe that there's some good practical wisdom in there.

It also tells you not to smoke. Hell, if you just followed the no fat, no smoke, and no borrow money you'll be so far ahead of the curve not even funny.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
they basically say..we think that they style of language points to 6th century BCE..and they say that is points to much later...we're right, they're wrong...

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence No. 2: Another textual evidence that Daniel was written centuries before 165 BCE are the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls (written from 150 BCE to 50 CE). Scholarly comparison of the unique textual and linguistic styles support that Daniel was written centuries before the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Can you find a scholar that says specifically that a linguistic analysis of the portion of Daniel that was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls supports a late-date authorship?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they basically say..we think that they style of language points to 6th century BCE..and they say that is points to much later...we're right, they're wrong...

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence No. 2: Another textual evidence that Daniel was written centuries before 165 BCE are the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls (written from 150 BCE to 50 CE). Scholarly comparison of the unique textual and linguistic styles support that Daniel was written centuries before the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Can you find a scholar that says specifically that a linguistic analysis of the portion of Daniel that was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls supports a late-date authorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, at least I can't find any

the dead sea scrolls seem to indicate that the sections of the book of daniel contained were not written at the same period of the dead sea scrolls...this does not necessarily support that specific earlier date..

most critics seem to say that although it seems to have been written in an earlier style, that does mean that it was actually written at that earlier date..especially if all of it was not written at the same time.

I've been looking at a lot of info on the language used..and it's pretty confusing since I am no expert in linguistics..and it gets even more confusing when you consider that the style (and references) may have been intentional to make it seem as if it were written earlier.

I also don't know any of the specifics of the textual analysis since my aramaic and hebrew are a little rusty /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

that one "evidence" in your link seems to be the decent one.

the dating, the apparent anachronisms within the book no matter what date you place it at, not to mention the implications of the prophecies itself are a little too much for my brain at this point

so I haven't really come to any conclusion on what I think of it all..

but your link certainly didn't push me to the earlier date side /images/graemlins/grin.gif..there is much better info out there than that crap

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they basically say..we think that they style of language points to 6th century BCE..and they say that is points to much later...we're right, they're wrong...

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence No. 2: Another textual evidence that Daniel was written centuries before 165 BCE are the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls (written from 150 BCE to 50 CE). Scholarly comparison of the unique textual and linguistic styles support that Daniel was written centuries before the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Can you find a scholar that says specifically that a linguistic analysis of the portion of Daniel that was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls supports a late-date authorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, at least I can't find any

the dead sea scrolls seem to indicate that the sections of the book of daniel contained were not written at the same period of the dead sea scrolls...this does not necessarily support that specific earlier date..

...it gets even more confusing when you consider that the style (and references) may have been intentional to make it seem as if it were written earlier.


[/ QUOTE ]
Christianity will not be proven to you. There will come a point when you will have to decide if what the Bible says about Jesus is true or if it is all one big conspiracy theory, including the date of authorship of the book of Daniel, the prophecies within the Old Testament, the resurrection, the growth of the Church and the disappearance of other religions (were those people just stupid?). If its a conspiracy, by whom and how did they do it?

You've got to put your faith somewhere.

[vhawk01]

I most certainly dont. I dont know that I even need to entertain the idea that there were conspiracies or ulterior motives in the creation of the Bible, but if I do, I can certainly just choose to consider that option more likely than the Bible being literally true. Faith need not enter the equation.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they basically say..we think that they style of language points to 6th century BCE..and they say that is points to much later...we're right, they're wrong...

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence No. 2: Another textual evidence that Daniel was written centuries before 165 BCE are the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls (written from 150 BCE to 50 CE). Scholarly comparison of the unique textual and linguistic styles support that Daniel was written centuries before the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Can you find a scholar that says specifically that a linguistic analysis of the portion of Daniel that was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls supports a late-date authorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, at least I can't find any

the dead sea scrolls seem to indicate that the sections of the book of daniel contained were not written at the same period of the dead sea scrolls...this does not necessarily support that specific earlier date..

...it gets even more confusing when you consider that the style (and references) may have been intentional to make it seem as if it were written earlier.


[/ QUOTE ]
Christianity will not be proven to you. There will come a point when you will have to decide if what the Bible says about Jesus is true or if it is all one big conspiracy theory, including the date of authorship of the book of Daniel, the prophecies within the Old Testament, the resurrection, the growth of the Church and the disappearance of other religions (were those people just stupid?). If its a conspiracy, by whom and how did they do it?

You've got to put your faith somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

exagerations, false prophets, visions that never happened, supposed miracles, etc. are part of so many religions....you have decided that this is true of all other religions...why is christianity special? why are you content to say that these are all conspiracy theories, but not christianity?

I refuse to give special consideration to christianity just because it is the most popular religion where I live. But that is what most people do.

[ QUOTE ]
You've got to put your faith somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

no I don't

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I most certainly dont. I dont know that I even need to entertain the idea that there were conspiracies or ulterior motives in the creation of the Bible, but if I do, I can certainly just choose to consider that option more likely than the Bible being literally true. Faith need not enter the equation.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are only two options: Jesus is who the Bible says he is or it was all a lie. If you choose not to believe Jesus died for your sins, you are placing your faith in the hope that it was all a conspiracy. There is no way around it.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I most certainly dont. I dont know that I even need to entertain the idea that there were conspiracies or ulterior motives in the creation of the Bible, but if I do, I can certainly just choose to consider that option more likely than the Bible being literally true. Faith need not enter the equation.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are only two options: Jesus is who the Bible says he is or it was all a lie. If you choose not to believe Jesus died for your sins, you are placing your faith in the hope that it was all a conspiracy. There is no way around it.

[/ QUOTE ]

we don't have "faith" or "hope" that it isn't true...you use those words so liberally that they might as well have no meaning...our is belief based on evidence..not "faith" or "hope"

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I most certainly dont. I dont know that I even need to entertain the idea that there were conspiracies or ulterior motives in the creation of the Bible, but if I do, I can certainly just choose to consider that option more likely than the Bible being literally true. Faith need not enter the equation.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are only two options: Jesus is who the Bible says he is or it was all a lie. If you choose not to believe Jesus died for your sins, you are placing your faith in the hope that it was all a conspiracy. There is no way around it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And do you not see how moderate rationalists, be they atheist or agnostic, have such a huge issue with Christianity? Life's all about grayscale and broader interpretations.

Without that trait, Christianity is always going to be at war with something. Why the hell should it be? Y'all have converted a large % of people, and some choose to believe in different systems of thought. What's next, single-cell organisms on Titan?

[Dominic]

lol....it's a book....written by men. Period.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
There are only two options ...

[/ QUOTE ]

garsh, is the world really down to two crayons? what strikes me so funny is that the first four options that crossed my mind as I read didn't contain either of the 'only two'.
I love this forum, luckyme

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
There are only two options: you can either walk around the hall without a hall pass...or you can go to Christ bra

--Eric Cartman as DOG. Bounty Hunter.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I most certainly dont. I dont know that I even need to entertain the idea that there were conspiracies or ulterior motives in the creation of the Bible, but if I do, I can certainly just choose to consider that option more likely than the Bible being literally true. Faith need not enter the equation.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are only two options: Jesus is who the Bible says he is or it was all a lie. If you choose not to believe Jesus died for your sins, you are placing your faith in the hope that it was all a conspiracy. There is no way around it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, I think I can accept that there are two options. I just can't accept that your decision and my decision are, at their core, the same. If you use faith in this way I think it loses all of its meaning.

[HeroInBlack]

[ QUOTE ]
Why? Because the only other option is that the Bible is true?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's nice. Refute my statement of fact by putting words in my mouth.

No, here's why (stolen from http://www.religioustolerance.org/daniel.htm)

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;" 2 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.
Daniel 11:31 (and elsewhere) refers to "the abominable thing that causes desolation." This appears to refer to the erection of a statue of Zeus in the Jerusalem temple in 167 BCE, and would indicate that the book was written later than that date.
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 Palestine, under Antiochus. The Greeks will win, will lay spoil to all of northeast Africa, and return to Palestine 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. Thus, the book was apparently completed before 164.
---------------------------------------------------------

In the end, nothing I say is going to change your mind. You can cite sources that claim that 98% of people that don't believe in your little fairy tales didn't want to believe in your fairy tales, but I can just as accurately make the claim that 98% of people that believe in your fairy tales want desperately to believe them.

I used to be a Christian. It is the overwhelming evidence to the contrary that led me away from it, not a desire to not believe it.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the musical instruments mentioned in Daniel 3:5 and in subsequent passages did not exist until developed in 2nd century BCE Greece.

[/ QUOTE ]

here's a wikipedia entry on this subject..

[ QUOTE ]
There are three Greek words used within the text which have long been considered evidence for a late dating of Daniel. All three Greek words are used for musical instruments. The existence of the Greek word 'symphonia' was cited by Rowlings as having its earliest use in second century BC, but modern scholarship now knows its use much earlier, both in the sense of a specific instrument and as a term referring to a group of instruments playing in unison. Pythagoras used the term to denote an instrument in sixth century BC, while its use to refer to a group performing together is found in the sixth century BC 'Hymni Homerica, ad Mercurium 51' Despite their early use in Greek however, there is no evidence for the use of these instruments in Mesopotamia in the Neo-Babylonian period where they are said to be used in Daniel, and their mention in the book is generally taken as an anachronism.

[/ QUOTE ]

this evidence doesn't seem to be quite as strong as it would seem..

although there is no evidence that would suggest that the musical instrument being referenced was used when the book of daniel says it was used...

it isn't quite as solid because we know the the word for it (or for musical instrument playing in unison) was indeed used at least one other time when the book of daniel was supposedly written(early date)..

the wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel) has a lot of info of this sort for anyone interested

[jogsxyz]

Ask this question in an Arab forum.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldea

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
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 Palestine, under Antiochus. The Greeks will win, will lay spoil to all of northeast Africa, and return to Palestine 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. Thus, the book was apparently completed before 164.

[/ QUOTE ]
Total misinterpretation. Beginning with verse 36, the remainder of chapter 11 refers to the anti-christ and the end times. (It corresponds with chapter 9).

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Total misinterpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trust you to have the right interpretation. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Unfortunately, or fortunately, it is just that, an interpretation, yours.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Total misinterpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trust you to have the right interpretation. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Unfortunately, or fortunately, it is just that, an interpretation, yours.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand what you are trying to say, but all I am doing is pointing out that the passage as many christians interpret it is not inconsistent with our beliefs, as Hero was trying to prove.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
as many christians interpret it

[/ QUOTE ]
and as many do not... meaningless really!

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as many christians interpret it

[/ QUOTE ]
and as many do not... meaningless really!

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you name a christian denomination that doesn't believe the end of Daniel 11 is a prophecy about the end times?