Talk:Daniel 7

The dream and interpretation illustration not original research

The illustration merely takes the Bible as it is written (NIV) and physically arranges the texts into parallel according to obvious related words, phrases and concepts. This is the very definition of paraphrase. There is nothing new added to the Bible or taken away. This is completely a NPOV.

The synthesis is merely a paraphrase of the Biblical texts. Allenroyboy 18:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A similar paraphrase illustration and table appear in Nebuchadnezzar's statue vision in Daniel 2. Allenroyboy 17:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As with the chapter 8 article, the content of this article needs more citations from scholars, commentators, experts. etc. The current analysis is based on the reflections of a single individual, and as such is POV Tonicthebrown 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What I said concering the paraphrase illustration here about Daniel 8 applies to this page too. Allenroyboy 18:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia Paraphrase page states

"A paraphrase (from the Greek paraphrasis) is a statement or remark explained in other words or another way, so as to simplify or clarify its meaning."

The paraphrase illustration on this page is ONLY a paraphrase, putting the text in another way physically so that the text itself clarifies its own meaning. Paraphrasing is a long established and well founded technique on Wikipedia.

And, as was said above, the synthesis is merely a recapitulation of the paraphrased illustration. The only POV is that of the text itself. It does not matter whether someone likes what the text itself says or not. Therefore I am removing false assertion of original research. ---Christian Skeptic 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

changed page

concerns about information that was on this page but which has been removed is deleted.

No Serious Biblical Scholar

Believes the 4 Empire are Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece. Only an idiot would not figure out that Media and Persia are always together, the Break up into 4 pieces of the 3rd Beast is clearly the division fo Alexander's Empire after hsi Death.

Most holding the History written after the fact or Preterist view of the Passage just hold that it was obliviously Rome was on the rise by then.

So it is an outright lie to claim a completely Idiotic interpretation of the Passage is the accepted view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased Article

This article is in need of revision. My reasons are as follows:

1) The article is not balanced. The modernist view is given the overwhelming amount of verbage in the comparative part of the article. The other views are given a few sentences, and the other views are widely held.

2) The modernist view was referred to as the "scholarly" view, which diminishes the scholars who hold other views (of which there are many). It is better called a modernist view, a correction that I have made.

3) The objection to the modernist view begins with a defense by a SDA writer, when there are other more respected scholars who are members of more mainstream religious groups who could have been cited. A scholar from Dallas Theological Seminary and a PCA scholar could provide two differing, but still divergent and respected views.

4) The view for the late date for Daniel is weaker than it used to be, and this is not addressed in a reasonable manner. Also, the arguments used to buttress this late date are not universally accepted, unless one holds an anti-supernatural bias that excludes serious consideration of any views that require that Daniel was a prophet.

5) In conclusion, one may be a skeptic or a believer, but an unbalanced article is not informative.--Baxterguy (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Book Analysis: Fraud verses supernatural

I would like to start a discussion my concerns noted under "Biased Article" above.

1) The Modernist (previously called "Scholarly") view of Daniel essentially believes it was a forgery written after the events described took place. There are multiple other views held by persons who believe the book of Daniel is from the era when Daniel was in exile. However, the forgery/fraud opinion is the primary opinion discussed in this article, despite the fact that one can find scholars in all camps.

2) If this were an article on the Koran, would anyone accept structuring the article as follows: 1) Excluding the introduction, conclusion and general discription of the Koran's content, set aside 50% to 75% of the remaining space for those who hold the Koran to be a fraud, along with a large "rebuttal section" of the "fraud" theory by referencing a non-mainstream religious group?; 2) Give 1-3 sentences each for Sunni, Shia'h and Sufi beliefs about the Koran?

No one would do this, and if they did, the page would be edited by Muslims (and even some were not sympathetic to Islam) to give a reasonable overview of each belief. When one belief is given overwhelming space in an article, less informed individuals assume that is the dominant belief in the world. When the rebuttal is, with all due respect to the SDA, by a non-mainstream group, the rebuttal is viewed less credibly than it would be otherwise. But in this article, a group holding to an essentially heretical view of Daniel (it's a forgery, fraud, whatever nice word you want to use) is the primary focus. NOTE: I mean no offense to Muslims (and am not implying anything negative about the Koran), but I wanted to use an example that was outside Christianity.

3) An even presentation of the pros and cons of each view would better present readers with the opportunity to see the strengths and weaknesses of each. Of course, if one holds the view that there is no such thing as a prophetic or anything supernatural - a view closely associated with the modernist view - then an article that minimizes a discription of anything but "Daniel is an 'after the fact' fraud" makes sense. But that is not informative to the average reader.

4) One more comment: In the 19th Century, there was a view among liberal European scholars (i.e., Tubingen school) that the cities in the Book of Acts were largely myth - after all, they had not been discovered by "cutting edge 19th Century archaeology". William Ramsay was forced to change his opinion based on his research in the Ottoman Empire. If there was a wiki article in that era and discussions of the cities of Acts focused on them being myth and minimizing other views - we would look back on that era of "scholarship" as little more than arrogant intellectuals with an anti-supernatural bias. There is always a place for evenhanded presentation of views.--Baxterguy (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you.... Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologetic work

Should apologetic interpretations be included in articles like this? If so, should all denominations' views be included? I've noticed in articles about Judeo-Christian scriptures, some Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses like to add a large section quoting some apologist, usually without listing any academic qualifications. This despite the fact that they represent .7% and .3% of Christianity respectively. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (with other smaller traditional Eastern churches) represent over 70% of Christianity. It seems to make more sense to have only a few sections on traditional religious interpretations.

1. A traditional Jewish section (with Conservative, Reform subsections)

2. A traditional Christian section (with a Protestant subsection)

If the article devotes an entire section to a view to which less than 1% of a demographic group adheres, any sense of context and balance gets lost. Wikipedia is not an apologetic site. There ought to be some objectivity, correct?

The reason why there was a Protestant Reformation, with it's massive impact on the history of the world, was because of their Historicist interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation which fingered the Catholic church as the little horn, Antichrist. Besides Salvation by faith through grace, historicist interpretation by Luther was the driving force behind his protestation. You name any Protestant reformer and he was a historicist. However, beginning about the mid-19th century most protestant churches abandoned their historicist interpretation in favor of Dispensationalism which is a curious blending of the Catholic Counter reformation's mutually exclusive Preterism and Futurism interpretations. As I understand it, SDAs and JWs are the only churches which still hold to the historicist interpretation, which was so pivotal in the history of the church for nearly 400 years. For that reason alone the historicist interpretation ought to be represented in the article. If someone wants to add a traditional Catholic interpretation and the new Dispensationalism, they are free to do so. You appear to be functioning under the delusion that history can be rewritten by the those with the largest numbers or the most power. Allenroyboy (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There was seven kings then a battle of three prior to the establishing of Empire.

I apologize as I know you are supposed to support with facts as opposed to discussion, but is it just me or does nobody realize there was seven kings between the forming of Rome in 752bc up until 509bc. At this point Rome was turned into a Republic and through the Republic came three main rulers. Caesar, Pompey & Crassus. They rivals for control and formed a treaty called the (first) Triumvirates in 53bc. After Crassus died both Caesar & Pompey went to war where Pompey after loosing to Caesar was eventually assassinated in Egypt 48bc. Caesar was a marvelous general and took many new lands into the control Rome whilst it was still not an Empire. It was through Caesar that the republic made way to the first Roman Emperor and Rome became officially an Empire. It was through the reign of Caesars that followed that the church was persecuted and the Catholic church was formed.

Apologizes for adding this but I am confused how to me it seems so obvious Tsigano (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition to this after Julius Caesar's death the kingdom fell into civil war between four people. Augustus (the adopted son of Julius Caesar), Mark Antony, Brutus & Cassius. Both Brutus & Cassius were united and stood on one side of the civil war supported by the Pathians to the east. Then there was Augustus & Mark Antony on the other. Augustus crushed Brutus & Cassius. He then went on the beat Mark Antony who had set up in Egypt and the east of the Empire. Augustus recieved the title as the first Emperor of Rome.

He was even granted the title of Divi filius meaning the 'son of God'. His line went on to be the many Emperors / Caesars of Rome. Tsigano (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)