Defending Daniel - Evidence for the Bible pt4
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- IMPORTANT UPDATE:
It's been over 5 years since I posted this video and I have a really important update for you.
One of my concerns in the video was that it was so difficult to find an accessible resource that walked you through this topic well and this was my motive for making one. But I have just found a resource that handles this issue MUCH BETTER than I did and I want to share it with you now.
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie (a brilliant scholar) just posted a 90 page, well-footnoted treatment of the dating of Daniel and it is far better than my treatment in this video. I even went back and edited out some stuff from my video after reading his paper! I think it's a thoughtful, balanced and thorough treatment of the subject and while it might be just a bit challenging for laymen I think it's still well worth your time. Jonathan gives strong support for the early date, shows where some common arguments in defense of Daniel fall short (even some I shared in the video, which I have edited out to keep from providing any poor arguments in support of the early date, which I am still quite strongly convinced of), and even gives some new support for the early dating that I wasn't aware of before!
Here's what I edited out, since I'm sure many will be interested.
- Critics say that Belshazzar was not Nebuchadnezzar's son and I responded by quoting Herodotus who gives room for us to think that Belshazzar's grandfather was Nebuchadnezzar. However, Herodotus may be unreliable on this account and it is simpler to say that the "Son of Nebuchadnezzar" claim is about claiming to rightfully sit on the throne of Nebuchadnezzar and not a claim to be a biological descendant. Jonathan's article supports this perspective well.
- I edited out some of my claims about the motives of critics. I've grown as a follower of Christ in the last several years and would not now make any conclusions about the motives of people with such broad strokes. Even if it could be true of some people it's a hasty generalization to make of all. In hindsight and with a few more years of life under my belt I see that I was being rude and I'm sorry.
- I had said that Nebuchadnezzar was not known to be a builder by historians in the 2nd century BC but that's proven wrong by Jonathan's article when he shows Josephus quoting a 2nd century historian on the topic. This wouldn't be a strike against the early date for Daniel but it should not be used in support of it either. It's a non-issue when it comes to dating.
- Finally, I removed a brief reference to Daniel being made a "third ruler" in the kingdom as support for Belshazzar being the 2nd ruler under his father. This is possible but it's equally possible that the queen mother was the 2nd ruler, in which case the point had nothing to offer us in supporting or refuting the early dating of Daniel.
I'm grateful to Jonathan for helping us defend the Christian faith with even greater accuracy and intellectual integrity.
HERE is Dr. Jonathan McLatchie's excellent work on the dating of Daniel jonathanmclatc...
This is part of a series on Evidence for the Bible.
The previous week's video on the provably fulfilled prophecy of Daniel 7-8 is here • Fulfilled Prophecy (Da...
Full "Evidence for the Bible" playlist here: • Has God Spoken? EVIDEN...
IMPORTANT UPDATE:
It's been over 5 years since I posted this video and I have a really important update for you.
One of my concerns in the video was that it was so difficult to find an accessible resource that walked you through this topic well and this was my motive for making one. But I have just found a resource that handles this issue MUCH BETTER than I did and I want to share it with you now.
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie (a brilliant scholar) just posted a 90 page, well-footnoted treatment of the dating of Daniel and it is far better than my treatment in this video. I even went back and edited out some stuff from my video after reading his paper! I think it's a thoughtful, balanced and thorough treatment of the subject and while it might be just a bit challenging for laymen I think it's still well worth your time. Jonathan gives strong support for the early date, shows where some common arguments in defense of Daniel fall short (even some I shared in the video, which I have edited out to keep from providing any poor arguments in support of the early date, which I am still quite strongly convinced of), and even gives some new support for the early dating that I wasn't aware of before!
Here's what I edited out, since I'm sure many will be interested.
- Critics say that Belshazzar was not Nebuchadnezzar's son and I responded by quoting Herodotus who gives room for us to think that Belshazzar's grandfather was Nebuchadnezzar. However, Herodotus may be unreliable on this account and it is simpler to say that the "Son of Nebuchadnezzar" claim is about claiming to rightfully sit on the throne of Nebuchadnezzar and not a claim to be a biological descendant. Jonathan's article supports this perspective well.
- I edited out some of my claims about the motives of critics. I've grown as a follower of Christ in the last several years and would not now make any conclusions about the motives of people with such broad strokes. Even if it could be true of some people it's a hasty generalization to make of all. In hindsight and with a few more years of life under my belt I see that I was being rude and I'm sorry.
- I had said that Nebuchadnezzar was not known to be a builder by historians in the 2nd century BC but that's proven wrong by Jonathan's article when he shows Josephus quoting a 4th century historian on the topic, meaning that this historians work could have been available in the 2nd century BC since Josephus knows of it in the f1st century AD. This wouldn't be a strike against the early date for Daniel but it should not be used in support of it either. It's a non-issue when it comes to dating.
- Finally, I removed a brief reference to Daniel being made a "third ruler" in the kingdom as support for Belshazzar being the 2nd ruler under his father. This is possible but it's equally possible that the queen mother was the 2nd ruler, in which case the point had nothing to offer us in supporting or refuting the early dating of Daniel.
I'm grateful to Jonathan for helping us defend the Christian faith with even greater accuracy and intellectual integrity.
HERE is Dr. Jonathan McLatchie's excellent work on the dating of Daniel jonathanmclatchie.com/the-authenticity-of-the-book-of-daniel-a-survey-of-the-evidence/
Your information is incredible! I am enjoying watching your videos on all of this. Thank you for doing this!
Oh wow
I appreciate your humility in this post, and how you apologize for things you said previously.
It's far better for us to humble ourselves than for God to have to do it!
Thank you for your CZcams channel; it's a great resource.
Thanks Mike, you're a blessing! I just laugh when I read the haughty attitude of the wiki entries and they all source to one article, which is almost 20 years old, which sources to German scholarship from 100 years ago citing poryphry. Their bias against prophecy is what leaves their arguments weak to any semblance of a reasoned argument. Also it doesn't help that the Archaeology just blows them up seemingly everyday.
If you read online the book :
"Daniel and the Revelation" by Uriah Smith, 1800's ... he takes you verse by verse thru the books of Daniel and Revelation and shows how they interpret and interact with each other and the exact historical fulfillments of prophecy and explains what's to come which matches with what the Protestant Reformers all believed and taught...
🙂🙏🙏🙏
Also watch on CZcams: Pastor Doug Batchelor's
Of Amazing Facts ...
"The Millennium of Prophecy Seminar
Starting with
"The Millennial Man" which is Nebuchadnezzar's dream and interpretation showing the history of the world🙂🙏🙏🙏
Also on CZcams
Professor Walter Veith's
"Total Onslaught Series" of 36 videos on the prophecies of
Daniel and the Revelation prophetic comparison and fulfillment! 🙂🙏🙏🙏
Further reading,
"The Great Controversy"
by Ellen G White
shows what the Protestant Reformers went through and believed and how Lucifer is trying to take God's/Christ's place for our worship and how prophecy will be and is being fulfilled 🙂🙏🙏🙏
Just fyi:
Nebuchadnezzar was the grandfather of Belshazzar🙂🙏🙏🙏
From the book
"Prophets & Kings"
by Ellen G. White 1800's
"Through the folly and weakness of Belshazzar, the GRANDSON of Nebuchadnezzar,
proud Babylon was soon to fall.
Admitted in his youth to a share in kingly authority, Belshazzar gloried in his power and lifted up his heart against the God of heaven. Many had been his opportunities to know the divine will and to understand his responsibility of rendering obedience thereto.
He had known of his grandfather's banishment, by the decree of God, from the society of men; and he was familiar with Nebuchadnezzar's conversion and miraculous restoration.
But Belshazzar allowed the love of pleasure and self-glorification to efface the lessons that he should never have forgotten.
He wasted the opportunities graciously granted him, and neglected to use the means within his reach for becoming more fully acquainted with truth.
That which Nebuchadnezzar had finally gained at the cost of untold suffering and humiliation, Belshazzar passed by with indifference. "
"Prophets and Kings"
Chapter 43, Pg 522.2
May God Bless you in your search for truth 🙂🙏🙏🙏
Your the best! I was never very religious. I started reading the Bible Nov 2018 at the age of 63. I started reading Revelation followed by Daniel. Both difficult books to understand. Daniel has since become my favorite book. God used it to change my life. If you read and understand Daniel it’s impossible to say God does not exist. I was born again Feb 23rd 2019. My faith and trust in Jesus has grown immensely from reading the Bible and watching videos like this. You have some of the best videos on Daniel. Thanks!
Praise God! Hope you are keeping well brother.
robs3557 - I cemented my relationship , trust and faith in Jesus Christ about the same age as you . Just goes to show , " it's never too late " , Jesus was waiting all along for you and I to realize how badly we need Him . Praise His Holy Name , God Bless and take care . I'll meet you in Heaven !
Praise God!
Praise the Lord. May you continue to grow and be blessed in the Lord.
That is amazing to hear! Hope to see you someday in heaven brother!
I am a missionary and Bible teacher. This is one of my favorite subjects and this is one of the best presentations I have seen yet. Well done teaching the truth. There is a God, and He has spoken.
+Michael Katkus awesome! Thank you
When was the point you start believing in the bible?
I cant even imagine the scale of the amount of people whom faith you help strengthen. Blessed be the Lord for putting you on this path and bless you for following it. Thank you.
Linguistic evidence also supports the traditional dating of Daniel. As is commonly known, the Book of Daniel was originally written in both Hebrew and Aramaic: 1:1-2:3 and 8:1 12:13 make up the Hebrew portions, with 2:4-7:28 making up the Aramaic segment. In the past, critical scholars have relied on the use of Aramaic in Daniel to bolster their case that it was written during the Maccabean period., as they believed Daniel's Aramaic "more closely matched the Aramaic of the second century B.C., than that of the sixth century B.C. However, evidence provided by the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient documents has revealed that the Aramaic in Daniel is characteristic of an earlier, eastern form of the language as opposed to a later, Palestinian derivative, "as one would expect of a resident of Babylonia."7 This type of Aramaic, referred to as "Imperial Aramaic," is thus perfectly congruent with Daniel's geography and time.
Mike, i have finally found a kindred brother in you, who loves seemingly unimportant details and with ability like Paul to bring all of the pieces together for the real demonstration of the Holy Spirit to wrap the argument solidly around our Berean mindset, and pull it home. You are the teacher i have always striven to be. thx sir.
Proverbs 25:2, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings."!
Can’t wait to get to heaven and hug mike winger for teaching us so much and his wife for supporting him while he studies for hours before the sermons.
He’s a blowhard. I feel sorry for his wife.
Amen
Is he late?
I noticed that his post was edited 2years ago and your text was made 3years ago
Mike, the Lord brought me to Ken Boas' 30+ part teaching on the book of Daniel about 5 years ago. Since then I have listened to it around 50 times--I have a long commute to work. This video was a wonderful supplement to those teachings and a deep comfort to my soul. Our Father loves us and gives us these wonderful teachings to treasure in our hearts until His Son returns or we return to Him. Thanks for the treasure, brother.
Great job. You answered some of the questions I had concerning the 'Book of Daniel'. Thank you, Mike! Keep proclaiming and defending the Holy Word of God!
I’ve been studying the book of Daniel and I understand it but man you break it down and make it easier to understand! Thanks for this, God bless you!
Critics claim that Daniel is too accurate for it to be genuine. However, even if we were to allow them to say it was written 200 BC, then they would still have the amazing accuracy of the 69 weeks until the coming of the anointed one, his death, and the destruction of the temple to explain (Daniel 9; 25-26). If it can be this accurate on this detail, then why not also on the rest?
Here’s another I don’t get about those who claim the late date: the Jews knew how to determine if a prophet was true or not from passages like Deuteronomy 18. If someone came along and wrote “prophecy after the fact”, is it really realistic to assume that these people were deceived into accepting a traditional dating of a text (a dating to then be accepted for centuries after) written by someone who quite obviously was pretending to be a prophet, given these strict guidelines? If someone today forged a document and said it was written by George Washington, a simple investigation could reveal that it was a fake-let alone the fact that Daniel would have been known as a prophet to the Jews living in the 2nd century BC-it doesn’t seem reasonable that they’d just ACCEPT some new writing as having been written 400 years prior and yet no one had any idea it ever existed...does anyone have any strong evidence or a counterclaim to this objection? I’m open to hearing it
Very good point
Well in 200 BC, how could someone verify the date of a document? Imagine a priest comes up to the people and says they have found an ancient document that perfectly predicted everything that has happened to them in the last 400 years, and claims it was written before the events took place. There is absolutely no way for the people to verify whether or not that is true, or if the priest wrote it himself and just claimed it was ancient prophecy. All the priest needs is a dusty old scroll and some persuasive public speaking skills.
@@Iamwrongbut Yeah except a document like that would never be added to the canon of scripture because there would have been no other record of that man having existed as a prophet. My point is that the Jews would’ve definitely heard of a prophet that existed in the 500s BC because his claims woulda been publicly declared as per Deuteronomy 18. There’s no way his record would’ve been tucked away in dusty books in someone’s attic.
@@solascriptura5980 there definitely is a way that that could be included in the canon because the Israelites were definitely not faithful to obeying the laws of Deut. Otherwise they wouldn’t have been exiled! Haha
@@Iamwrongbut lol well... there are a few problems with that
1) Then why didn’t God reprimand them for including false scriptures in their canon? Surely Jesus would’ve said something about it.
2) Why did revelation cease for hundreds of years? If they were gonna include false scriptures then why didn’t they include 1 and 2 Maccabees and many other non-canonical documents as well?
3) Jesus references the biblical canon and had no problem with the Hebrew Scriptures. If the book of Daniel were a lie, wouldn’t he have said something?
Its just a lot of speculation. The problem for skeptical scholars is that if the book of Daniel was written in the 500s BC, there is no getting around the fact that God is real and Yahweh is His name
Excellent work. Thanks for compiling all of this information in one place.
This is a great video, the research you did really gives force to the arguments.
Is that the only objection that you have?
@@ryanmayfield6231 I don't have time to go point by point with you, although I'd like to, but I'm curious about whether you watched the video here that rebutted most or all of the points you just made. I don't want to just restate the responses.
@@ryanmayfield6231 So you think Daniel was written in the 2nd century AD just because it was known to people at the time? What kind of logic is that? Are you gonna say the Titanic sank in 1997 just because a guy made a movie about it at the time? This is what happens when you don't even watch the video and then copy and paste an entire article to make your case my guy
@Edmund Spenser That doesn't matter as long as you can't argue that Darius never existed, which you can't.
I just found your videos and from what I've seen I'm delighted. So good to see folks doing this necessary historical and apologetic work without losing sight of the grand sweep of scripture and its typological resonances.
Hey, I know you!
Hey Mike! Just to let you know that my mother and I are currently watching this series and we just finished part 4 and I have to say, even as believers who love the Word of God, we're learning many new things from your series and we can't wait to watch the rest of this series. May God continue to bless your ministry, as I believe that many Christians are being strengthened in their faith because of the work you to do in defending the truth of God's holy word to us.
You said the linguistic section would be difficult, but it was my favorite part!
This really helped me to be blessed reading the prophecy portion of Daniel. My professor while at Berkeley had challenged early date and I couldn’t get that out of the back of my mind until I listened to this. Thank you!
Thanks Mike. This was riveting for its amazing scholarship and your usual humble but authoritative delivery. I listen to at least one of your podcasts every single day, and they’re the time when I feel closest to God and do my best praying. You have been life-changing to me. I pray for you at the top of my list. Thank you, dear Mike. Blessings.
O. M. G 😲
FA-BU-LOUS 😁😍
Thank you so much for what you're doing! 🙏
I've been listening to you almost every day for weeks, Mike, and I can't get enough.
What a blessing your hard work / passion for the Lord and His Word / and your teaching are!
May He continue guiding and inspiring you, and blessing us so abundantly through you,... forever and ever and ever, Amen! 😊 💕 Cheers and Hallelujah!
Thank you, Mike! This was an honest and thorough refutation to the half-truths of the "higher critics" of God's Word. I have a nephew who served as an assistant pastor of his local assembly, who went away to receive his doctorate in Assyriology at a liberal school of "higher learning". After having his head pumped full of the useless drivel of his professors, he emerged an avowed agnostic, (just an atheist with a fancy name). The book of Daniel is his favorite target that he uses to deride those that put their faith in the scriptures. This, of course broke the hearts of all our family members, and we lift him up before our Lord daily. Satan has blinded his eyes to God's truth for the time being, but ultimately the scales will be removed and he will worship our Savior with us! You are correct about the unbeliever, he follows his pre-conceived, false notions because of his hatred for God's truth. What is their purpose for going to such lengths to "disprove" the scriptures? I believe in my nephew's case, it is because there is a war going on in his mind, The Spirit wars against the flesh, and the flesh against the Spirit, but we know Who wins! Thanks again for this excellent video. I particularly love the fact that you are obviously fighting back the tears at the end of your presentation. This is evidence of The Spirit of God powerfully at work in your ministry! Needless to say, I will forward your video to my nephew.
God bless you!
The moment when education and learning becomes the enemy of your faith, it might be time to re-evaluate your beliefs.
Timothy Truitt
How threatened you are with an honest search for knowledge, and ultimately truth.
Your brothers son clearly has the humility and the curiosity to go and follow the truth whatever it takes him.
How sad I feel for your nephew, having you as a frightened, vengefulLuddite of an uncle. Oh, and try a Little love on your brother’s son. Or better yet, have faith. After all, he may come back to “your“ way of “thinking.“
@@BurnBird1Depends on what you are learning. Do you argue that everything that is taught in a higher learning institution is true? If you are learning things that may be incorrect how does that conflict with your trust in God? It is a ridiculous assumption that higher learning and the Bible are in conflict, but that certainly shows why we have a significant amount of completely brainwashed, college educated people. More college educted than ever yet, poor in so many of the ways that really matter.
@@bassmanjr100 It is true in the sense that it best conforms with the available evidence. In that sense it's true.
The things you'd be learning that are incorrect would only be incorrectly thought of and taught as correct due to an absence of evidence to the contrary.
There is a lot of "higher learning" that's in conflict with the bible, unless you simply decide to ignore those parts, as is usually done. The reason why most Christians no longer believe the earth to be 6000 years old has nothing to do with the bible, but the simple fact that it's impossible.
People attending college/university are statistically less likely to fall for conspiracies and right-wing thinking, so it's obviously the opposite of being "brainwashed".
What are the "ways that really matter"?
@54:06 "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information." Michael Scott "The Office"
@Gary Allen well most of it is false these days and bias sweeps in even under supervision...
Great work Mr Winger! Thank you for your dedication to the Word.
Daniel is soooo good. I did a paper on the book in college and it really firmed things up for me. Daniel in the Critics Den is a great book if you are curious.
This is your best lesson. You are right about there being little to no defenses of Daniel like this. I was looking for a way to not have to do the heavy lifting myself, you know, reading; so I tried to find a video on the linguistics of Daniel and found nothing. Then I found yours, and it delivered more than I had hoped for. Thanks for the best defense of Daniel I have seen.
Linguistic evidence also supports the traditional dating of Daniel. As is commonly known, the Book of Daniel was originally written in both Hebrew and Aramaic: 1:1-2:3 and 8:1 12:13 make up the Hebrew portions, with 2:4-7:28 making up the Aramaic segment. In the past, critical scholars have relied on the use of Aramaic in Daniel to bolster their case that it was written during the Maccabean period., as they believed Daniel's Aramaic "more closely matched the Aramaic of the second century B.C., than that of the sixth century B.C. However, evidence provided by the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient documents has revealed that the Aramaic in Daniel is characteristic of an earlier, eastern form of the language as opposed to a later, Palestinian derivative, "as one would expect of a resident of Babylonia."7 This type of Aramaic, referred to as "Imperial Aramaic," is thus perfectly congruent with Daniel's geography and time.
How absolutely fantastic! Thank you Mike for the hard work you put into what you do. I love Bible Prophecy because in it we see God writing history before it happens, it shows how awesome God truly is!
Really interesting, thanks. I love stuff like this.
This is evidence that it is not a good time to be an atheist!
@Jane Marsee was just thinking the exact same thing
This video is epic! So thorough and such a solid case made for the Daniel prophecy that can only be explained by God!
Thank you so much for this. You have no idea how much this (and your other videos) has strengthened my faith and confidence in scripture.
Glad I found this video, Mike. I learned a few things! On Darius the Mede, I'd offer to you the thesis of Steven Anderson (PhD Dallas TS) called "Darius the Mede: a reappraisal" in which the author revives the claims of Josephus and Jerome that Darius is better known to us as Cyaxares II. He also demonstrates that Daniel agrees with Xenophon, against Herodotus, and that later sources which swayed scholarship towards Herodotus are propagandistic and need to be handled critically. Thanks for all the work you do, I'm loving your videos.
😂you are hilarious and thorough. you did an excellent job in research and explanation! thank you!
your art is perfect!
Wow! this is gold! great stuff!
Thank you so much for this! I had been wrestling with the historicity of Daniel but no longer!
Once again, thankyou for doing all the work so that I can have a firm foundation if the scriptures are called into question. You are strengthening the faith of many, and helping to bring down the arguments against it.
I really appreciate this series! Thank you and may God bless you.
I honestly think this video is hurting Christianity. Rather than just living in a dream world where we ignore responsible scholarship and pretend the Bible has no issues, we need to honestly engage with the problems in the Bible. By misrepresenting the other side's arguments, you have made it so that certain people might feel more secure, but those who actually go listen to the other side, and realize that you have misrepresented them and misrepresented the strength of their position, will be all the more likely to leave Christianity because of you. Stop pretending the Bible has no issues. Admit them and figure out the best way to do Christianity in the reality that exists, not one of your own choosing.
No one worth taking seriously says that prophecy is impossible. To waste time tearing down things like that makes Christianity seem like a joke too. Bart also explicitly does not reject miracles or prophecy. There is an important distinction between having faith against something and simply not doing things that are outside your field. You can disagree with the way that Bart does history, but his methodology is clear. And the advantage of that methodology is that every conclusion he proposes will be potentially acceptable to everyone that listens to him. He may miss the truth in cases where the truth is supernatural, but his way of doing history allows everyone to participate, whereas the moment you propose that Yahweh did something, you are stuck in an ivory tower. Ideally the world wouldn't be that way. Ideally everyone would at least be willing to consider the idea that Yahweh did something in history and ideally you would be willing to consider that Allah did something. But unfortunately that's not reality right now. Bart is doing history the way that seems to work best in our present reality. Everyone agrees that natural explanations are acceptable, no matter their religion or creed. It's the only way we can all do history together.
No need to concern ourselves with the issue of Belshazzar's existence now that its established. Why bother making fun of the people who once thought he didn't exist? It just makes Christians look like bullies, though to be fair, that's what a lot of Christian apologists are nowadays. The fact that Belshazzar dies in Daniel is a serious issue. There's nothing to suggest in any of our sources from the time that Belshazzar died defending Babylon, and as I think you pointed out, Nabonidus actually surrendered peacefully. Now this is an argument from silence, but you must not immediately reject arguments from silence. You use them all the time. The last time someone argued for a late dating of Luke-Acts, I bet you asked them why it didn't mention Paul's death, or why it didn't reference Nero. We all use arguments from silence and they are legitimate arguments, not fallacies. We just have to be careful because often we are overconfident about how likely a source would mention something. We could argue about how likely sources from the time would mention the crown prince's death, especially relatively detailed and accurate sources like the Nabonidus chronicle. At the very least we must admit that it is suspicious that it goes unmentioned, unless, of course, it didn't happen.
That Nabonidus goes unmentioned in Daniel is also very strange. He was present at the fall of Babylon and seems to have been the most important person involved. To say that Daniel simply neglected to mention him feels weak. To say that Daniel conflated him with Nebuchadnezzar seems strong. First, we have the story of Nebuchadnezzar's madness. This story doesn't seem to be historical, given that we don't have any record of Nebuchadnezzar leaving his seat of power, but more importantly, don't have any record of Nebuchadnezzar's proclamations about the true God, which we have expected God to preserve for us, had they existed. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls story of Nabonidus is obviously, given the same wording in many places, of the same tradition of the Nebuchadnezzar story in the book of Daniel. And since Nabonidus is actually known to have had odd religious experiences, and since Nabonidus is known to have left the kingdom for many years, this is the more feasible origin for the story. At some point the story of Nabonidus being told among the Jews probably got changed to Nebuchadnezzar. This is clearly where the evidence leads us. And this has the double power of explaining how the book of Daniel could possibly fail to mention Nabonidus. This also explains why Nebuchadnezzar is referred to as Belshazzar's father. Sure, it could mean grandfather, but usually that's indicated by the context, and there's nothing in this context to suggest it means anything other than father. Nor is it anything but pure speculation to say that Belshazzar is Nebuchadnezzar's grandson. That Nebuchadnezzar has been substituted for Nabonidus is a far more convincing explanation, which is based on actual evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and not just pure speculation.
To suggest that Darius the Mede actually received the kingdom would be a wildly overconfident statement. We have very strong evidence that Darius the Mede did not receive the kingdom; that is to say, we have inscriptions telling us who was the king who overthrew Bablyon - Cyrus, a Persian, not a Mede - and who was the governor he established in Babylon - Gubaru (Gobryas). To speculate that Darius is either of these people is just that- pure speculation. To speculate is perfectly acceptable. To pretend that one's speculation is historical fact is unacceptable. And- this is crucial- just because you have evidence for the possibility of something doesn't mean you have evidence for the occurrence of something. There is absolutely no evidence that Darius is Cyrus or that he is Gobryas. There is, in fact, outside of Daniel, not only no evidence for him whatsoever, but powerful contrary evidence. Only someone seriously biased to their own interpretation of the Bible would accept the mere possibility of Darius existing as good enough to establish Biblical infallibility or whatever you are trying to establish. If a book is infallible just because everything in it could possibly be true, then oh boy do we have a lot of infallible books around here. The question is what is probably true. And I can't imagine an honest person would suggest that it is probably true that Darius the Mede received the kingdom, given the evidence we have. It is (very) probably not true. That's the honest state of the current evidence.
It seems to me you have particularly misrepresented the Aramaic evidence. You said that Daniel's Aramaic is imperial aramaic. Daniel's aramaic is educated, yes, but it has distinct differences from imperial aramaic. It occupies a place in between imperial aramaic and the later western aramaic spoken in Palestine. You could not miss this if you studied sources from institutions who do not force their researchers to always agree with their doctrines and thereby take away their academic integrity. So while the Aramaic portions of Daniel are almost certainly not from the time of the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can also say that they are almost certainly not from the time of the Persian Empire, when they claim to have been written.
As for the argument from silence regarding the Greek instruments, I would say again that we must judge how likely we expect something to appear. If the book of Daniel mentions a Greek instrument in the 6th century B.C. and that instrument isn't mentioned again for 300-400 years, that is extremely suspicious. Words don't usually drop off the map like that. It would help if we had evidence of Greek instruments being brought to Babylon, but according to you we don't, and the fact that other Greek goods are being brought to Persia hardly explains anything. Is it possible that a writer in 6th century Babylon knew this Greek instrument and heard a bunch of people playing it together there? Yes...but not at all probable. Doesn't it seem way more likely that the Babylonians would be using their own instruments for these ceremonies rather than importing a ton of Greek instruments at a time when Greece was hardly on the map?
The Chaldeans, which were roughly an ethnic group, were non-natives who took over the area. So yes, the Neo-Babylonian empire was ruled by Chaldeans, so it makes complete sense to use the word Chaldeans to mean rulers, not just as an ethnic group, because the rulers were literally Chaldeans. Knowing this doesn't make Daniel special.
As for the advanced theology, you are unfair to the critics. You see resurrection, apocalyptic predictions, etc in Genesis and earlier books because that's how you to choose to read the Bible. But that's not what's literally in the text. You cannot fault your critics for reading the text in a literal way. In a literal reading of the old testament, these apocalyptic ideas and images do not appear or are very rare before Daniel. You need to try to be able to see things from a non-Christian perspective.
So please reconsider how you present your information. I read Jonathan McLatchie's article and it's not much better. He's not willing to admit how serious the problems in Daniel are. As long as you continue to approach the situation this way, you will probably get a lot of views, and you will probably get a lot of people thanking you for your work, and if those people never leave the echo chamber of uncritical CZcams videos they may never realize how you were misleading them. But to the people who do actually engage with the opposition, and realize how dishonestly they have been prepared for this encounter, they are all the more likely to leave Christianity because of you.
Wow! What an incredibly well-informed and well-written rebuttal to this sophist. Made my reply completely unnecessary. Most of what you wrote I was familiar with already, but some of it was new. But you didn’t fully develop the Darius the Mede problem, so maybe I can help you with that. Basically, it’s the same answer as Daniel’s confusing of Nebuchadnezzar with Nabonidus. So Darius the Mede (who didn’t exist) is probably a muddled memory of Darius the Great (522-486 B.C.E.)For example in Daniel, Darius the Mede appointed 120 satraps over the kingdom. In history, Darius the great, organized the empire into 20 satrapies. Ciao.
Putting together 10 different arguments from silence doesn't make a good argument.
This was very well-done. As someone with a background in anthropology, I really appreciated this video.
I am listening to this series over and over. I hope to know it inside out to help me share the Gospel. I also try to listen to the critics, as I would like my understanding to be robust. I find Mike's responses to the critics so helpful. Thanks Mike
Thank you God for this video. Your Bible proofs again and again You are awesome.
I'm the one that needs the research too lol!! Well, because blind faith to me means the possibility of falling into lies and traps. Thanks! This research is worth alot!
Almost 4 minutes in and I found out thru my studies that it doesn't matter when Daniel is claimed to have existed as long as Daniel was before Jesus, and therefore the 2300 years still applies nicely and accurately (without getting into much details).
🤯🤯🤯
I don't agree with everything you teach, but to this I say:
AMÉN!!!
Hi Mike, just want to point out, in regards to Belsahzzar, the artifacts that were found showing King Nabonidas was out of town and left Babylon in the charge of his son, coupled with the fact that Belshazzar says he would make the interpreter of the writing on the wall a "third ruler", requires an eye witness account given the type of specificity. The so-called "forger" of Daniel in 164 B.C. would not have known what Belshazzar said with that type of specificity. He might have guessed, but, would not have a made a remark like "make him third ruler". It's one of those "off the cuff" type of remarks historians look for to validate the historicity of ancient writings, according to Bart Ehrman.
Furthermore, and this is just my own speculation, we all have seen or read the stories where the bratty heir to the throne spends his time time partying with little regard for real leadership. This would fit Belshazzar to the Tee, and lend even more credence to the idea that while daddy was out of town, this spoiled brat was partying every night and showing blatant disregard for the people he was given charge over and their religious beliefs (using the items from the Temple to drink out of to impress his party crowd). His attitude fits that of someone who was never told "No", had everything handed to him, and was a wannabe king who thinks that leadership is giving orders rather than leading by example. He fits the bill as an entitled kid who expects his father to just give him the keys of the kingdom. He feigns gravitas, but is really a coward. Notice how Daniel 5:6 says "Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one
against another". Typical of a bratty prince who has no idea of what it means to be a king and be responsible for a kingdom and it's people. He Talks with authority, but really is a coward.
Only an eyewitness could give an account like this. Just my thoughts.
Aannnd....I should have kept watching. LOL.
Thank you so much for you hard work, it is such a blessing
Hey guys let's say that Daniel was actually written in 2nd century b.c. (which it is not)
You still have the prophetic insight into the rise and rule of Rome hundreds of years before it came about. Even Edward Gibbon the author of the History of the decline and fall of Rome confirms this. Not only that but Daniel also predicted the division of the Roman empire which would later on become modern Europe.
Q: Do you know good examples of prophecies that were “made” after the events?
A: All those in the book of Daniel which is the most cited for fulfilled prophesies. Believers claim it was written in the 6th century BC, but it actually dates to around 165 BC.
What do you say to this claim?
You are clearly taking that quote from Bart Ehrman out of context. He's trying to explain that just because a miracle is written about doesn't provide enough evidence of it's occurrence. To disregard this logical statement and to propose because he is a critic and there for is forced to disagree with Daniel's story is just a sad stance to take.
I thought something similar! This quote alone would be some bad reasoning. XD Everyone should read this and get that it has a reason why Ehrmann articulates this so provocative.
Maybe you have changed your mind, but I don’t think what you think Mike was doing with that quote is exactly the purpose of using it.
Hey Mike. I would love to hear your thoughts on the son of man prophecy in Daniel. It seemed like a strong deity of Christ argument, but I have only heard Nabil Qureshi make it. Your whole channel is amazing though. A real blessing. Thanks.
This is GREAT stuff Mike! Thanks for posting this and doing this work! Very helpful for my sermon series on Daniel!
Hello (Pastor?) Mike. Thank you so much for this video. It was literally an answer to prayer.
I have a question for you concerning the interpretation of the little horn being Antiochus IV.
I should clarify here that I take the book of Daniel to consist of repetitions and enlargements in their prophetic chapters--2, 7, 8, 11-12. In other words, I take them to be repeating the same history (although 8 and 11 do not count Babylon, but that is for a reason), but in greater detail. If you want me to, I will do my best to expand on this idea (I'm still a learner when it comes to this book, and really the whole Bible).
With that said, let me get to my question. As I have understood it, the little horn refers to the Catholic Papacy during the Dark Ages, when it was not merely a religious entity, but one that had political power on its side as well (Note: This is not referring to individual Catholics, but the system, with its hierarchy and political clout).
My reasons for this are (found in Daniel 7:23-25):
1. The 4th beast is a separate nation to that of Greece, not a mere extension of it. It is the Roman Empire. This agrees with the flow of kingdoms of Daniel 2 (the kingdom of Brass, Greece, being followed by the kingdom of iron, Rome). Antiochus was dead by this time.
2. The little horn arises after the 10 divisions (horns, or Germanic kingdoms that arose out) of the Roman Empire (at least its western half)--making it post AD 476. The Catholic church received political power (that is, Justinian permitted the bishop of Rome to "administer justice" on heretics using his and other military forces) in AD 538. Again, Antiochus was dead by this time.
3. Through its influence, 3 of the first 10 divisions fall (can't remember the date now, but the last of the 3--the Ostrogoths--fell some time in the 6th century). The fall of the Vandals, Heruli, and Ostrogoths can be tied to their defiance to the Catholic church's doctrines (they were apparently Arians, although this may have just been slander to justify their slaughter) and ecclesiastical control (they didn't care to follow the Roman bishop as their supreme head). Antiochus didn't do this.
4. It makes blasphemous claims--i.e. it claimed to be God on earth, though only human (John 10:30); claimed the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:7); makes a false profession to be a Jew (i.e. a Christian--Romans 2:28-29; 9:6-8; Gal. 3:26-29). It is for this reason--its religious claims--that it is distinct from the other 10 original nations that arose out of Western Rome. This perfectly describes the religious claims of the papacy (although not all of its claims are incorrect). Antiochus didn't make any of these claims.
5. It persecuted Christians for 3.5 prophetic years (time, times, and dividing of times = 1260 days, or literal years--see Num. 14:24; Ez. 4:6). This again, was fulfilled in history, where Rome, through its ties with several nations of Europe, had millions of Christians, especially during the era of the Reformation, slaughtered, ending finally only in 1798, when General Berthier of France forced the pope to abdicate. Even if we took this time period to be literal, Antiochus didn't persecute God's people for 1260 days.
6. Attempts to change "times and laws"--in part, this refers to an attempt made to change God's law. The papacy did this in its manner of altering the commandments--removing the 2nd, changing the 4th, and splitting the 10th. Antiochus made no such attempt.
This is from Daniel 8:
1. The he-goat (Greece under Alexander, and later his 4 generals) "waxed great"
2. The little horn "waxed exceeding great" (that is, it was even more powerful than the nation of Greece). This cannot apply to Antiochus IV, as he was substantially weaker than Alexander and his 4 generals. Rather, this language--that is, "exceeding" (sorry, I'm quoting from the KJV as I write this, hence the old-fashioned English) links it to the 4th beast in Daniel 7 (verse 7). Thus, the little horn here refers to Pagan Rome (the Empire). However, I believe it transitions to papal Rome (the Catholic church-state of the Dark Ages) in vss. 11-12. I must admit, I am still working on this view, but it seems to harmonize with the Daniel 2 and 7 pattern.
I'm sure that you have loads of people asking you questions, so don't worry about taking time to respond. Also, I am open to other views, so please know that I am (at least trying to be) sincere in asking this, and not just trying to start a debate. I have just presented what has made sense to me. I really look forward to your response. If you already have a video that addresses this, I can check that out if that saves you time.
May God bless you in your ministry. It's been a blessing to me.
This uplifted me and encouraged me. Bless you my brother.impressive!
Hi Mike, could you provide your sources to this message? This would be great, thank you 😊
Excellent vid! Thnks for updated article also!
Thank you for making this video! Your research on the book of Daniel is quite the gem. I am in the research phase of a project I am working on that I am titling "Daniel: Fraud, Fiction, or Fact."
I also believe that with a proper defence of Daniel our faith can be confidentially placed in the prophecies therein.
What did you conclude in your research?
On the point of the Critics "Don't they know?" I think/ Believe they know. BUT Just like God has His peoples working for Him, so does el diablo... So we can correct them all they want, they will just take a L and move on to find another "dummy". Kinda like when Jesus was talking about demons leaving to dry places, then comes back only to see it swept up so it goes out to fine 7 more even meaner than himself(or itself). Well it cant take over a person knee deep in the word, and walk with God, but it sure can take over Bob 3 miles away that don't know jack. Did I make sense, I have a hard time articulating myself..
If the devil= facts, education, and logic, then I guess I’m on the side of the devil.
In his book God's not dead. Rice Broocks,Ph.D, wrote that, atheists themselves admit that they can't win in a formal debate against Christian scholars.
Great job mike.
please continue to torch skeptics and critics
God bless
great job Mike. if you want still to find a similar defence I listened through John macarthur's huge exposition of Daniel on the gty website - more than 20 hours - so pretty thorough. but yours is just as good and shorter! thanks again.
+nuthajason I haven't heard MacArthur on this but when I come to it again I'll probably check it out. I appreciate his scholarship.
@@MikeWinger Thank you for everything you do, you have greatly helped my faith! :)
A reason Daniel may not have been considered part of the prophets has to do with the patriarchs. There were three main guys: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel). Then there were twelve sons of Jacob who became the twelve tribes of Israel. In the prophets we see three major prophets: Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah and 12 minor prophets. It’s a pattern of 3 major and 12 minor.
Excellent work… You’re a fantastic preacher and teacher. Thankful I found you channel!! God bless you
Thank You!
Thank you… for all that you do.
God pls help me wrap my mind around history. I understand the word of God but the history part of it I just dnt know how to explain pray for me cuz I wanna know this stuff
Dee I Love Jesus
I appreciate your honesty, as well as your humility. You’re on the right path. There’s nothing wrong with honest skepticism. I’m sure Mike himself agrees he’s not the lone repository for “the truth”and I’m not saying you do, but don’t trust one source/person alone.
Amazing...
Just breathe taking...
"Bible critics have the amazing ability to repeat criticisms they know are invalid."
Seeing they will not see. Hearing they will not hear.
Great defense of Daneil! Keep doing videos like this. Very faith strengthening.
Well done and thanks for the updates. I read Jonathan's piece and it was solid. One thing Jonathan I think has kind of wrong is to include the late great Dr Michael Heiser among those who subscribe to the late date. Heiser has a video where he discusses the late and early date arguments but he doesn't clearly side with either. If any side he would have been an early dater. Heiser's biggest statement regarding the dating of Old Testament books is that in some cases (Isaiah 53 for example) whether you believe Isaiah was written in 7 BC or 2 BC the fact that Jesus and his crucifixion was predicted 200 or 600 years before the event is irrelevant really. He does not take this approach with Daniel however.
Thank you so much. God’s Word is true!
Love the work your doing. Great job. Would mind posting your sources for these post is love to dig in more?
Thank you themac! I did a lot of work researching on this topic and used quite a few resources. I would typically not take any one person's word for it and try and double check the various facts by looking them up online (not Wikipedia). For example, I compared multiple resources on the Greek words in Daniel and didn't use material I couldn't confirm independently, I looked up the actual text of the Nabonidus Cylinder rather than take a summary of it from one source. I used a few books I have as well as a wealth of material online. It's worth noting that the Dead Sea Scrolls have added light to the debate and commentaries or scholars who wrote before the publication (not just the discovery) of the DSS may have outdated opinions about a couple things I addressed in the video. All that being said.... I am terrible at recording the sources I use and, sadly, I don't have a list for you to use. It took quite a while to find those sources online because most people don't get into the nitty gritty details but just overview the topic and I was looking for details. I will post a couple links in this comment for you to check out because I did happen to copy them into my notes but don't think that this is the sum of my sources. Hopefully I will get better at cataloging this sort of thing in the future and be ready to cut and paste some source lists for stuff I do in the future. www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/07/31/New-Light-on-the-Book-of-Daniel-from-the-Dead-Sea-Scrolls.aspx#Article
christianthinktank.com/qwhendan3x.htmlgreat site on Belshazzar - www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/historical-apologetics/79-history/402-the-belshazzar-problem.htmlAnd another www.biblestudymanuals.net/belshazzar.htm
If you want to dig in to this with a scholarly resource… Joyce G. Baldwin covers all this material in the Tyndale Commentary series. Mike probably used it (or his other sources did) because it goes through pretty much everything here.
All of your arguments are about the Aramaic part. You need to discuss the Hebrew part, because a language change is an ideal time to add new material that wasn't originally there. That's how we got 60 extra verses and an extra chapter in LXX
Fair enough. So at minimum, the entire first half of Daniel is legit based on his arguments. Perhaps his longer video talks about the second part of Daniel.
Buddy! Thanks and greets from SDA church :) Let the Lord guide you!
hello SDA brother (or sister) (:
Clearly Daniel was written by multiple authors. Anyone with an English translation go and check......Daniel 1-6 is someone writing about Daniel and others......Daniel 7 onwards is someone claiming to be Daniel. This change of perceptive is also where the original language and style changes ....which is the indication of a different author.
Even if it's written by multiple authors, does that disprove the prophecies that it gives? And also, he gave an argument about the timing indicated from the writing which is during the 600 BC era. To clarify the point here: the writing of multiple authors doesn't necessarily affect the case if its contents were suggested to be written before the predicted events. Although it is an important point and observation, it would only suggest that there would be multiple people responsible for constructing a book of prophecy (which came true considering the time of writing).
@@thesentry8981 it doesn’t have a single miraculous prophecy
@@jerichosharman470 It's funny (for me at least), to think that you replied to this. I mean, it was probably a year ago when you watched this video and here you are... A year's a long time to remember the words or arguments (with accuracy) of any position. However, as implied... the choice to rewatch is yours.
Initially, I was going to ask if you watched his previous video about Daniel. However, I could see how supposed prophecies with metaphorical expressions wouldn't prove as evidence. Well, perhaps for more supposed evidential and scientifically grounded people that is. It's a stretch isn't it. At this point, I hope you find truth, and this applies to both arguments as logically in most cases, there is only one answer.
@@thesentry8981 I’ve studied the bible and the prophecies for many years.............. not a single miraculous prophecy through the entire bible .
This is why you won’t produce one , even you know that the words are to be “interpreted” in order to see it as having meaning today .
@@thesentry8981 hopefully one day you open your heart and find truth
Thank you brother for taking the time, energy, and strength it requires to present Truth as it is.
May YHWH bless you in His Son, Yeshua, all the days of your life
Thank you for your ministry
Hello Mike, thanks for the concise video-defence for Daniel. Just wondering if you'd be able to post a list of sources / references for the extra-biblical historical evidences you cited?
I noticed there was no cited sources for the material he used. Even though he does expand a little with examples, from my point of view he has likely followed chapter 2 Daniel A Book On Trial of the publication Daniel's Prophecy published by the Watchtower Society. You can find it here: wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101999021. His talk follows the order of the paragraphs for the most.
Crystal Cat actually definitely false. Mike is openly against JWs, so there’s a zero percent chance he draws his arguments from them.
22:30 "he was a gubber". That was awesome.
No amount of evidence will satisfy the skeptic
@@jacksonbenzick2357 for a true born again Christian, we have the evidence that God does truly exist.
@@jacksonbenzick2357 Yes of course it is. I have my own proof, just like my fellow born-again Christians. It took me 13 years to accept Jesus as my Lord and Saviour. By receiving the Holy Spirit just like Jesus promised us in the Bible, I can 100% know for sure that God does truly exist. We can experience God and have a true relationship with Him. This is the most amazing thing ever. For someone who is not a Christian, they don't know the difference between a born-again Christian and a normal Christian. They will just think that we are just following some rules given by the Bible. No, we aren't, we can have a true relationship with Jesus. This is the Gospel, once you become born-again, you want to spread the good news, because it is the good news. We want everyone to know because it is so good to feel the presence of God, the joy, the peace we have in Christ. Oh! I don't know how to tell, it's the best thing ever. This is the Gospel, the Good news. I hope I was able to explain it. Sorry for many many grammar mistakes.
@@jacksonbenzick2357 why would a born again Christian can say that the holy spirit is not real? Maybe he has not received the holy spirit in the first place. There are many Christians who thinks they have received the holy spirit, and think they are born again Christian, but after a month they will stop being Christian again. They don't have the root at all. I have many friends who are like this. I alao used to be like this. I have been in this situation for 13 years, all these time I used to think I was a born-again Christian, but I was never.
@@jacksonbenzick2357 I don't know what else to say brother. If they still want to reject Jesus even after being saved. For me, I cannot reject Jesus anymore.
@@FaithBiete Go watch Tovia singer completely dismantle Christianity.
Of course it is written after the fact. If it was written before the fact, then there is evidence that the Bible is devinely inspired, and cults, skeptics can't let that happen.
You are a blessing, Mike!
where do you get all this information from Mike? you got some subscription or do you just google search things?
This particular debate has been going on over 1000 years so there are loads of books arguing both sides
Mike, I wanted to ask, do you have any notes to share? I know this was 4 years ago, but, I’m curious.
If he responds, he’s a legend lol
"Historically, the book of Daniel was written in the 6th Century BC" 4:45. No, a historian would NEVER say that. Rather, they would say, "Traditionally, the book of Daniel was written in the 6th Century BC." Only a person with a theological outlook that was immovable would say "historically" when it is that notion that is in dispute.
Yes that invalidates all the facts in this video… 🤦🏾♂️
I think you may be misunderstanding what Mr. Winger was saying. “Historically” was referring to the fact that this was the majority opinion throughout the last 2 thousand years of Christian and Jewish history. Like if he said, “traditionally, this is the view.”
@@bman5257 .... you are repeating what I said. It's not "historical" but rather "traditional". If Winger is using the words interchangeably, he's wrong. The words have different meanings ... Daniel traditionally was believed to be written during the 6th Century ... historically (which is referring to actual reality) it was written much later and completed around 167 - 170 BCE.
Sometimes tradition and historicity can be the same thing. When they are not, as in the case of Daniel, it's the historical account that is TRUE and accurate and the traditional belief WRONG. Never the other way around.
@@josephsaulski This will be my last comment as this is not that big an issue, I just think your comment is nitpicking. In the video it is very clear that his opinion is an early date and that the academic consensus is a late date. When he lays out the two sides he mentions that “historically Daniel was written in the 5th century”. It would have been clearer if he said believed to be written but just looking at the context what he means in that context by historically is identical to the word traditionally.
@@bman5257 ... I see your point. But I don't think it's trivial when the premise of his presentation is to follow an earlier "traditional" dating for theology. The historical correct dating puts all the "so-called" prophecies as untrue and, again, the "so-called" future prophecies as not about the future at all.
The reason so many apologists demand an earlier dating is that without it, much of prophetic Christianity is wrong. As such, they can't let facts get in the way of a good story or theology.
At 55:07 to 55:42 you’re talking about how some Daniel was found at Qumran in the 1940’s, but the scholars didn’t publish until the 1980’s, and right after that you explain how it takes about 40 years to copy, canonize and circulate scripture.
That’s a synchronicity!
Thank you Mark! No work for the Lord is in vain!
Well done brother! I feel pre-armed. I haven't heard this argument before, but I might mention (in my next debate) how amazing it is that Daniel prophesied these events years before they occurred. Hopefully I will get a bite!
Hey mike :) i have watched a lot of your videos and i really like your literal approach to reading the bible. I have a question for you: would you ever consider going vegan as an act of compassion? I feel like i should preemptively mention i am not a seventh day adventist and this question is not so much theological but more personal.
This is an excellent summary of evidence supporting an early date for the book of Daniel. Can you share your sources for the various items shared here? It would help me in defending this position. I’ve already met pushback from my pastors in discussing the date of composition. Thanks for your efforts and your teaching.
The book of Daniel is not talking about Antiochus Epiphanes. He did desecrate the Temple later on by offering the sacrifice of a pig on an altar to Zeus, however this was not the Abomination of Desolation that Daniel was talking about. The Abomination of Desolation was the destruction of the temple in 70 AD by Titus. Jesus said it would happen within one generation (40 years) so it could not have been Antiochus Epiphanes.
Those were two separate prophecies
Yeah the abomination spoke about is when the Jews put an idol on the temple altar and the Romans were sent by God to punish them. Jesus new it coming and warned to flee when they see it.
Two separate things
THE NABONIDUS CHRONICLE
The Nabonidus Chronicle contains a contemporary account of the fall of Babylon. When we come to the seventeenth year of Nabonidus there is account of the procession of the gods being brought to Babylon for the fall Akitu festival. This gives us the context for the feast of Belshazzar where they praise “the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.” (Daniel 5:4)
The seventeenth year {N]abu [came] from Borsippa for the procession of Bel. Bel came out. In the month Tebetu [of the previous year] the king entered Eturkalamma. In the temple… He made a libation of wine ... [B]el came out. They performed the [spring] Akitu festival as in normal times. In the month [Abu?] [the gods] of Marad, Zababa, and the gods of Kish, Ninlil [and the gods of] Hursagkalamma entered Babylon. Until the end of the month Ululu the gods of Akkad… from everywhere were entering Babylon. The gods of Borsippa, Cuthah, and Sippar did not enter (Babylon).
What follows next is a plethora on chronological information that is pertinent to the establishing when the fall of Babylon occurred. Also, several people are introduced (some who we know well and others that there is a variety of opinions as to whom they are).
[In the month] Tashritu Cyrus did battle at Opis on the [bank of] the Tigris against the army of Akkad, the people of Akkad retreated. He carried off the plunder (and) slaughtered the people. On the fourteenth day Sippar was captured without a battle. Nabonidus fled. On the sixteenth day, Ugbaru, governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus, without battle they entered Babylon. Afterwards, after Nabonidus retreated, he was captured in Babylon. Until the end of the month, the shield-(bearing troops) from Gutium surrounded the gates of Esagil. (But) interruption (of rites) in Esagil or the (other) temples there was not, and no date (for a performance) was missed. On the third day of the month Arahsamna, Cyrus entered Babylon. The harû-vessels were filled before him. There was peace in the city while Cyrus, (his) greeting to Babylon in its entirety spoke. Gubaru, his district officer, appointed the district officers in Babylon. From the month Kislimu to the month Addaru, the gods of Akkad which Nabonidus had brought to Babylon returned to their places. On the night of the eleventh of the month Arahsamna, Ugbaru died. In the mon[th Addaru] the king's wife died. From the twenty-seventh of the month Addaru to the third of the month Nisannu [there was] (an official) mourning period in Akkad. All of the people bared their heads. On the fourth day when Cambyses, son of C[yrus], went to Egidrikalammasummu the ...-official of Nabu, who ... [...] When he came, because of the Elamite dress! the hand of Nabu... [sp]ears and quivers from… crown prince to the wo[rk ...] Nabu to Esagil ... before Bel and the son of B[el ...]
According to the text, it is in the seventh month that Babylon falls, as we read earlier, in the 17th year of Nabonidus’ reign. It is Ugbaru, obviously one of Cyrus’ commanders, who enters the city of Babylon on the 16th (October 13, 539). Even though Babylon was captured, they allowed the religious celebrations to continue. On the 3rd day of the 8th month (October 29), Cyrus himself enters Babylon. A new character Gubaru, a district officer, appoints other district officers in Babylon. From the 9th to the 12th month the idols are returned to their respective cities. We also find that Ugbaru dies in the 11th day of the 8th month (November 6), followed by the death of the wife of Cyrus in the 12th month. They held an official seven day mourning period from the 27th day of the 12th month to the 3rd day of the 1st month (March 20-26, 538 BC).
With such detailed chronological information, it is highly unlikely that this document is presenting false information. What would be its purpose? The account agrees with that that we find in the Scriptures. We also have Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, involved in some incident. These types of details are evidences of the veracity of the account.
If someone was going to forge the book of Daniel in the 2nd century BC would they not use old Persian and old Aramaic though to make it look more believable? It wouldn’t be a very good forgery if it was written in Middle Persian or Greek??
They probably won't know how to proficiently write in such forms to make it believable. Also consider the other points of the very detailed and accurate history of the 6th century, how can you explain away this?
I am surprised that you didn't mention Josephus's reference to the book Daniel in the antiquities of the Jews Josephus describes the event having taken place in 332 BC
“. . . he [Alexander the Great] gave his hand to the high priest and, with the Jews running beside him, entered the city. Then he went up to the temple, where he sacrificed to God under the direction of the high priest, and showed due honour to the priests and to the high priest himself. And, when the book of Daniel was shown to him, in which he had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated; and in his joy he dismissed the multitude for the time being, but on the following day he summoned them again and told them to ask for any gifts which they might desire. . .” Ant. XI 317, p. 467
Did Josephus even live in 332 BC?
@@aramkaizer7903 Implying he had to record data? I guess any modern article that talks about ancient or even recent history should not be taken seriously
This is nicely done and while the skeptics will continue to snipe at the Bible, it's so good to see these defences keeping on top of things. Thanks Mike.
17:27 But doesn't the blood line go through the males? Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabonidus, son of whoever... son of Adam? Why switch over to the maternal line at this point? Love the video in any case.
Actually in some cases it does pasd through the female like in the case of christ where the line of david was passed through mary who was a daughter of the davidic line...
God bless you Mike.
Bro..at 4 minutes in..all I can say, is how encouraged I am, at all the revisionists who attack Daniel for being a false testimony...its seems obvious that the reason they do, is because if Daniel was written as it truly was..then it shows a massive fulfillment of prophecy, that the enemy is desperate to try and account for..its so obvious that the book of Daniel is accurate, that the only way they can fight it..is to say the history is wrong..thats how good it is
Also love the history of Belshazzar at 10:24!
Some of the same people who refute Daniel as a prophetic book will marvel at the writings of Nostradamus.
Well done. Excellent work thank you!
Hello from England, it's the first time I've listened to some of your teaching. Good job :)
That's my Fell pony on my shoulder, he's called Elijah!