Jump to content

Talk:Book of Daniel/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Daniel described as a prophet in the New Testament

Daniel is described as a prophet in Matthew 24 so to the people of 2,000 years ago he was considered a prophet, not a fictional character.

Matthew 24:15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.128.111 (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

True, but 2,000 years ago Zeus was considered a god - are you arguing that Zeus is real?Achar Sva (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
No! A Pagan God is fiction. A True God can do things impossible to man. Like predicting the future.
Easiest example. Numerous passages in the Old and New Testaments state that Israel would be gathered from the nations and would again take over Palestine (The Promised Land). Is there now a nation called Israel in Palestine controlled by Israelites? Hint: Jews are one of the 12 tribes of Israel.71.174.128.111 (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- citations required to reliable published secondary sources to back up these claims - see WP:RS - bible references are considered primary sources, see WP:PSTS - also see WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTFORUM - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources. 71.174.128.111 (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Pagan gods can predict the future. The Romans had the Sybil at Cumae, she could predict the future. The priests of Jipter used to predict the future all the time. It's quite easy, really, if you're a god. Achar Sva (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The issue is not predicting the future. It is predicting the future ACCURATELY and for time periods of hundreds and thousands of years. Prophecies of Israelites taking back The Promised Land happened before they were forced to flee into the nations. That would be the Roman expulsions after the failed Jewish revolt around 70 AD. Any number of financial planners are currently predicting the future. How many would you trust with your money?71.174.128.111 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does allow the use of primary sources, but only to confirm what the primary source says - any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation - see WP:PRIMARY - Epinoia (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- the guidelines define the differences between citations and links - citations identify reliable sources of information (WP:CITE) - blue links help the reader find related information within Wikipedia (MOS:LINK) - Epinoia (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The Roman gods were very accurate in their predictions. Sybil at Cumae wrote about the first five emperors before there was even an empire, and totally correct. But in fact you don't need a god to be a prophet - Nostradamus predicted the Twin Towers, and he didn't mention any god helping him. And then there's miracles - little-known fact that the Emperor Hadrian cured the sick and restored sight to the blind. Happens all the time. Achar Sva (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

71.174.128.111 You put this on my personal talk page - please don't, put things here instead.
How about the one in the old testament where God promises that the descendants of Israel shall form a nation and a company of nations. This is actually a current event. As long as you agree that the usual migration paths from the Middle East and Central Asia are toward Europe and not India and China. see German or Slav migrations as examples. (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The answer is that I really don't care, I have things to do in real life. Also, please keep to the topic, which is improvement of this article. Achar Sva (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not put it here because it is not part of the Book of Daniel and thus does not belong here! Frankly wikipedia does not have an article on that particular prophecy.71.174.128.111 (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
This is going nowhere, IP is welcome to go to one of the boards to complain
== a year for a day method for interpreting prophecy ==

There is a method for interpreting prophecy which uses a day to represent a year in actual time which should be included in the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-year_principle

This method is used 3 times in Daniel according to the referenced wikipedia article, so a reference to it should be in this article.

Interpretation vary - including what is that the starting date of the prophecy. 604 BC seems to be the preferred one. Two other starting times are the 2 other times when the Persians looted the area in the next 20 years. The period of each prophetic year is usually considered either 360 years but some use 365 years. (I like 365 and am using it below as it more closely matches the total years at the very last part of Daniel.)

Daniel has a 7 year prophecy which would be around 2,555 years (7 times 365) if the method is applied. This is split into two periods of time (two 3.5 year periods). The end of the first period is considered the start of the period of desolation and the end of the second period is when the period of desolation ends.

If the start of the time frame is around 604 BC then the period of desolation starts around 674 AD. (604 plus 674 is 1,278 years or half of 2,555) This coincides with the Muslim conquest of Palestine and then the construction of the Dome on the Rock. This construction effectively removed the ability of Jews to hold ceremonies there. The end of the second period coincides with the restorations of Israel in Palestine. 2,555 years after 604 BC or around 1,951 AD. Not too shabby!

Using 360 days per each of the 7 years gives 1916 as the end of the period and coincides with the British conquest of Palestine from Muslim Turks. This allowed Jews to move to Palestine free of Muslim prosecution. This happened in the 1930's and 1940's.

the end of the Book of Daniel puts in a more exact timing

Daniel 12:11 “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.

The end of daily sacrifices is usually considered some time around 604 BC when Judea was conquered, the Temple destroyed, and the Temple's ceremonial items looted. 1,290 years after 604 BC is 686 AD (construction of the Dome on the Rock), and 1,335 years after that is 2,021 AD. Jewish ceremonies have yet to occur, but now Israel has taken over all of Jerusalem as a part of Israel. It would not be strange to see Jews performing ceremonies on what is again Jewish land in the near future. For that matter it would not be a surprise to see a mass Muslim attack on Israel in response to this ..... think Armageddon as described in the Book of Revelations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock

Palestine was conquered by Muslims in 634-635 AD while The Dome on the Rock was completed in 691-92 AD. CONSTRUCTION started earlier.

There are a number of people interpreting prophecy who agree that the construction of the Dome on the Rock coincides with the start of the period of desolation. Others don't! For the purpose of the prophecy, desolation implies being cut off from God while an abomination is something that is hated by God. This particular abomination is something that is "set up" implying that it is a constructed object.

definitions

desolate: a state of bleak and dismal emptiness. abomination: a thing that causes disgust or hatred.71.174.128.111 (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

- citations required to reliable published sources - see WP:RS - Wikipedia is not a reliable source - see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Who would have thunk it! Are you prepared to get rid of all wikipedia article citations that are to other wikipedia articles? Those blue highlighted thingies all over the place?71.174.128.111 (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking for clarification of blue linking - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Does that apply to articles or the talk page? Where are we currently posting? Cheers!71.174.128.111 (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- if you want to add your claims to the article you will need citations to reliable published sources to verify them - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
It's currently protected so I can't! Cheers!71.174.128.111 (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
If you register with a name you can post. But those blue highlighted things aren't citations, they're hyperlinks - they tell readers about related articles. The citations are in the numbers all through the article - click one of those and you get taken to a the short form of the citation, like, say, "Collins 2012, p.123", and then click on that and you get taken to the book by Collins in the bibliography, and click on that and you open the book in google books. You're welcome to read the books.Achar Sva (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
As for the "year for a day", you'll find that at the article called Prophecy of Seventy Weeks. You seem a tad arrogant, if you don't mind my saying so, and I suggest therefore that you simply read and learn, rather than try to teach.Achar Sva (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The prophecy of the 7 years is different than the prophecy of the 70 weeks and both are different from the prophecy of Alexander conquering Persia. Daniel 8:21 and 22. 8:21 The shaggy goat represents the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the broken one represent four kingdoms that will rise from that nation, but will not have the same power. Let me see now! Alexander heading a coalition of Greeks as their king, conquered Persia, then died and his conquests were split into four parts. Sure sounds similar! Do you know of another Greek king that conquered Persia?71.174.128.111 (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Please provide reliable secondary sources for the interpretation of the prophecy. —C.Fred (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
If history shows that the First President of the US is George Washington, do I need to provide proof that there was no other?71.174.128.111 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
These are all discussed in the articles on the various chapters of Daniel, but not in this article, for reasons of scope.Achar Sva (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I keep on asking if there was some other Greek king that conquered Persia (aside from Alexander) and nobody can give me one. It's because there is no other such king!71.174.128.111 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To provide a bit of context: You are not the first person who comes to the Talk page of an article about a pseudoscientific idea or about a proponent of pseudoscience and writes things like "this violates NPOV", "the article should say less about what scientists say about it and more about what <X> themselves say". This happens every day, at one pseudoscience article or another. It is caused by the fact that many pseudoscientists have successfully given the public the wrong impression that their ideas are a valid part of science. The public then sees that Wikipedia articles are in conflict with that perception and thinks that changing the Wikipedia article is easier than changing their own perception. The attitude of those editors is always the same: "I know better than all the other editors here. I just need to convince them." The methods are always from the same set: *edit-war, *personal attacks, *sealioning, *wikilawyering, *soapboxing (walls of text), *misinformation from and links to questionable websites, *attempts at logically deriving the truth of their own beliefs from platitudes and from wrong assumptions about science. *I probably left out a few. The result is always the same: *it will not happen. The reason is that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and pseudoscientific sources are not reliable sources. *An additional result that occurs if the editor in question does not back off in time is that the editor is blocked. You have already exhibited the attitude and some of the methods we know so well. Doug Weller's comment on your user talk page "Your fate is in your own hands" refers to the expected result. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Is there another Greek king besides Alexander that conquered Persia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue
If there is only 1 George Washington who was first president of the United States would you need proof? Similarly there is only 1 Greek general that conquered Persia. 71.174.128.111 (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
As stated: attempts at logically deriving the truth of their own beliefs from platitudes and from wrong assumptions about science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Does any historian support the theory that there was another Greek, besides Alexander, that conquered Persia? is the sky Blue?71.174.128.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Since we seem to be sidetracked - Continuing to point out that the article lacks any material on the "year for a day" method to interpret Daniel. 71.174.128.111 (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because it isn't WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP;
and because that WP:FRINGE view is treated in another article, as others told you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
To me saying Daniel was fictional is fringe. We have over 2,000 years and billions of Christians and Jews saying Daniel was an actual person and a few thousand (at best) atheists saying he is a fictional character. Christians will all point you to Mathew, an authority whose work is still read 2,000 years after it was written. How many will be reading your "scholars" in another 2,000 years. Per you the opinion of a few thousand outweighs the opinion of a few billion. Can you see a problem with that or is this a sign of "I am right so I care about other opinions". Seems you are projecting YOUR failings onto me. I have no objection to the point of view of a few hundred being in the article. Why do have an objection to the point of view of billions being in the article? As a rule atheists don't read the Bible so are no aware of what is inside. Is that a sign of being informed?71.174.128.111 (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

... Wikipedia, as usually, prefers its narratives and its ivory tower snobbery over any serious attempt to listen to the common man ... --2600:1700:9190:5DF0:F58B:D8E3:5BC7:9C99 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

... which is of course an odd argument: Wikipedia has decided that it only listens to experts, so deviating from this rule in matters of religion would be special pleading.

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Why the day=year view is not the view of millions? It was generally debunked at the Great Disappointment. You may read liberal theology in order to see that you push theologically fringe views. Most Christians don't agree with day=year. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
From above you seem to think that I need to prove that "the year for a day" method works to your satisfaction. That is wrong. I just need to prove that it exists and it is being used.
https://www.1260-1290-days-bible-prophecy.org/day-year-principle.html
Concerning the historicist view, Gregg says: "A unique characteristic of this line of interpretation is its advocacy of what is called the "year-for-a-day principle."’" He lists the following among the adherents of the historicist view:
"John Wycliffe, John Knox, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Phillip Melanchthon, Sir Isaac Newton, Jan Huss, John Foxe, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Finney, C. H. Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, E. B. Elliot, H. Grattan Guinness, and Bishop Thomas Newton." (S. Gregg, "Revelation: Four Views," Nashville: Thomas Nelson Pub, 1997, p. 34.)
If it was used by such figures as Martin Luther, John Calvin and Sir Isaac Newton then it is significant. Do you or do you not agree?
Various portions of the Bible state that some prophecies are sealed. That means hat they will NOT be interpreted till it is time for that to happen. It does not matter how many people band their heads against the wall! The wall will be there as long as it needs to be there.71.174.128.111 (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
That does not make it modern, mainstream Bible scholarship, so it does not belong in the article. Nor is it a popular theological POV, except for a few fringe cults. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Don't make me laugh! The 70 weeks prophecy is thought to be 490 years. That is 7 times 70! "A year for each day" method in action.71.174.128.111 (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:CITE WP:RS showing that it isn't WP:FRINGE or be gone from this talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
What is your problem? The method is already reference in the article as part of the 70 weeks prophecy. The following text is in the article already. 70 weeks times 7 = 490. I'm just saying that a reference also needs to be made for the prophecy of the 7 years.
The anointed ones and the seventy years (Chapter 9): Daniel reinterprets Jeremiah's "seventy years" prophecy regarding the period Israel would spend in bondage to Babylon. From the point of view of the Maccabean era, Jeremiah's promise was obviously not true—the gentiles still oppressed the Jews, and the "desolation of Jerusalem" had not ended. Daniel therefore reinterprets the seventy years as seventy "weeks" of years, making up 490 years. The 70 weeks/490 years are subdivided, with seven "weeks" from the "going forth of the word to rebuild and restore Jerusalem" to the coming of an "anointed one", while the final "week" is marked by the violent death of another "anointed one", probably the High Priest Onias III (ousted to make way for Jason and murdered in 171 BC), and the profanation of the Temple. The point of this for Daniel is that the period of gentile power is predetermined, and is coming to an end.[61][62]71.174.128.111 (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Nothing from this book has anything to do with Muslim conquest of Palestine and then the construction of the Dome on the Rock, other that is was a once popular interpretation which Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox now consider it as debunked. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The Book refers to a period of over 2,500 years in two places. Once as the 7 year timeframe of a prophecy. Per the year for a day method that is actually 7 years of days times 365 (or 360) days per year. This period is split in half with the abomination of desolation being "set up" at the end of the first period, and the removal of this obstruction at the end of the second. The "time, times and half a time" is a part of this prophecy! The very last part of revelation gives a more exact dating of this prophecy.
The last part of Daniel states: 11 “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days. The most accepted starting time for this 2,500 plus time frame is 604 BC.
On the Dome of the Rock and Daniel - Some say it is the Abomination of Desolation! Some say it isn't! I believe that it is since nothing else fits the prophecy. This aomination is "set up" or constructed in the late 600's AD and lasts another 1,335 years. Do you know of anything else preventing Jews from doing ceremonies on the Temple Mount for the last 1,300 years? 71.174.128.111 (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/18980/is-the-dome-of-the-rock-the-abomination-of-desolation-spoken-of-by-the-proph71.174.128.111 (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Who debunked it? having a different opinion is nor debunking!71.174.128.111 (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
If you want to shoehorn the Dome of the Rock into this article, you have only one deal: WP:CITE a WP:RS or be gone from this article. You have not been singled out for special treatment, this is the deal everybody gets at Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I want to include language on the 7 year prophecy from the Book of Daniel, which the article TOTALLY lacks!71.174.128.111 (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
and who debunked it? Failed interpretations are a dime a dozen!71.174.128.111 (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:CITE a WP:RS. It's non-negotiable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I want to quote the Book of Daniel and also Matthew. Do you have a problem with that? Matthew 24:15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. I already know that any source I find you will not like! Because you are like THAT! "My opinion is the only opinion that counts and it sucks to be you if you disagree with my opinion"71.174.128.111 (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah! On the Great Disapointment! Why would I be disappointed at somebody being wrong! I see it all the time!71.174.128.111 (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bible isn't WP:RS, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
and again Who debunked it? Debunked means proven false! 71.174.128.111 (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue
Pedantry, and other didactic arguments
Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification. For example, an editor may demand a citation for the fact that most people have five digits on each hand (yes, this really happened).[1] Another may decide that the color of the sky is actually aqua rather than blue, pull out an assortment of verifiable spectrographic analyses and color charts to demonstrate that this position is actually correct, and follow that with a demand that other editors provide equivalent reliable sources for the original statement that the sky is in fact blue. While there are cases where this kind of pedantic insistence is useful and necessary, often it is simply disruptive, and can be countered simply by pointing out that there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious.
Just out of curiosity is the fact that Alexander the ONLY Greek king that conquered Persia patently obvious? If not, who are the others?71.174.128.111 (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not pedantry. It's a WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:FRINGE/PS claim that the Book of Daniel talks about the Dome of the Rock. Therefore it needs a rock-solid WP:RS and the Bible isn't one. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
If there are other Greek Kings that conquered Persia I would like to know their names and when they did the deed! Please respond with names and dates! other wise it is pedantry! There is no wikipedia requirement to provide citations for common knowledge. The Book of Daniel talks about an Abomination that causes Desolation which prevents Jews from performing ceremonies aka cutting them off from God. Per some interpretations this is supposed to happen around 680 AD. FYI: Jews and Christians consider temples to pagan Gods abominations. Allah is one of those pagan Gods.71.174.128.111 (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


"No! A Pagan God is fiction. A True God can do things impossible to man. Like predicting the future. " Pagan gods could predict their future. Prophecy is the domain of Apollo. Dimadick (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Now we have a secular wikipedian claiming that Apollo is real! Please be more self aware!71.174.128.111 (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Dating Daniel from Daniel

Daniel 11:1 And I, in the first year of Darius the Mede, stood up to strengthen and protect him. 2 Now then, I will tell you the truth: Three more kings will arise in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. By the power of his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece 3Then a mighty king will arise, who will rule with great authority and do as he pleases. 4 But as soon as he is established, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the authority with which he ruled, because his kingdom will be uprooted and given to others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_Persia#Achaemenid_Kingdom_(~705%E2%80%93559_BC)

Darius II ruled from 424 to 404 BC. He was followed by Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III and Artaxerxes IV. (the 3 kings) and then Darius III (the one who will go against the Kingdom of Greece) to be followed by a mighty king (Alexander) who will do as he pleases, but whose kingdom once established will be split to the four winds ( Alexanders conquests were split into 4 parts after his death). It will not go to his descendants (because it went to his generals) nor will it have the authority with which he ruled (because 4 smaller kingdoms are not as powerful as one large one), because his kingdom will be uprooted and given to others (others means the generals who took over the 4 parts). .

So according to the Book of Daniel, Daniel himself lived during the time of Darius II. 71.174.128.111 (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The Emperor Hadrian restored sight to a blind man by spitting on his eyes, and cured another man with a withered arm by touching him. These things are recorded by Roman historians, and if you believe the Book of Daniel you need to believe them also.Achar Sva (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I have a tendency not to believe the propaganda of rulers who declare themselves God Kings for the purposes of maintaining their rule! Call me crazy!71.174.128.111 (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
However Romulus and Remus suckled by a she wolf has a small chance of being true! Humans raised by animals is very very very very rare but has happened.71.174.128.111 (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The above was assuming Darius II was the Darius mentioned in Daniel and already indicated a date prior to 400 BC. The best fit however would be Darius I as Daniel II live a hundred years after the Persian conquest of Mesopotamia. Modern historians say that there are 5 recorded kings between Darius I and Xerxes, but two of which reigned for very brief periods and may not count as kings for purposes of the prophecy. Why Xerxes? The prophecy states that a Persian king would "rile up Greece with his wealth". Xerxes funded rebellions and wars in Greece which should count as "riling up with his wealth". Since Darius I lived prior to 500 BC, Daniel FROM Daniel can be dated to prior to 500 BC.71.174.128.111 (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Jewish sources on dating Daniel

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1735365/jewish/Why-Isnt-the-Book-of-Daniel-Part-of-the-Prophets.htm

“And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, but the men who were with me did not see the vision. But a great quaking fell upon them, and they fled into hiding.”4 Who were these men? Said Rabbi Yirmiyah, and some say it was Rabbi Chiya bar Abba, “They were the [prophets] Chaggai, Zechariah and Malachi. They were superior to him [Daniel], and he was superior to them. They were superior to him, in that they were prophets and he wasn’t. He was superior to them, in that he saw the vision and they did not.”5

Chaggai is also spelled Haggai!

This Jewish source treats Daniel as a person and not as a work of fiction, contemporary with the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. All 3 lived before or around 500 BC. He is described as a person both superior and inferior to these prophets. (They were superior to him [Daniel], and he was superior to them.) He saw visions that they did not while they taught morality which he did not. This later is from other parts of the same source which are not included in the above cut and paste. 71.174.128.111 (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:IDHT is operative here. So is WP:DNFTT, and that means you, Tgeorgescu...
I am unwatching this page because the lame is too painful to watch. See you later. Elizium23 (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I have an issue with Daniel being described as fictional and the work being authored around 150 BC. Also the article demeans Daniel by saying Jews don't describe him as a prophet implying he has lesser status. From the cited source Jews consider Daniel a person (not a fictional character) who was in some respects superior to other prophets. I would like to get the article changed to reflect this.
As can be seen I have an issue with MANY points regarding the current article. Not just one!71.174.128.111 (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Elizium23: I'm considering the desirability of having our friend blocked from all articles to do with biblical subjects - he don't listen and he posts like a fireman's hose.Achar Sva (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Elizium23: I agree. I've hatted the conversation above and blocked the IP from Talk space for 72 hours. Next time everyone please ignore him. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
It is rather difficult when he/she searches for accurate prophecies in the Bible. A book famous for prophecies written after the fact. Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The most self evident prophecy stares you in the face every time you look at a map of the Middle East. It is called the country of Israel. Bible prophecy states that Israel would be scattered among the nations and then gathered back up. Israel is the fulfillment of the gathering up. Since people here have complained that I post too much, if you feel a need to continue this, issue please start a thread on my talk page. You can then spectate the most fair (sarcasm) way in which wikipedia treats non members in live action. Bring popcorn! Assuming that wikipedia does not set some kind of app on me which automatically reverts my posts, we can continue there. Toodles!71.174.128.111 (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The Book of Daniel and Alexander

Repeated demands have been made on me to provide evidence that the Greek king that conquered Persia was Alexander the Great. I have repeatedly pointed out that there is ONLY ONE Greek king that conquered Persia and that this king was Alexander. Wikipedia policy states that you don't need to provide citations on commonly known facts that should be known to someone with some level of education. Anyone with any kind of knowledge should know that Alexander the Great was the ONLY Greek king that conquered Persia and thus this fact falls under common knowledge.

BUT since you guys insist here are references

1) People who believe the Bible say so

https://www.compellingtruth.org/Alexander-the-Great.html

Is Alexander the Great mentioned in the Bible?

Though Alexander the Great is not mentioned specifically in the Bible, Daniel and Zechariah both prophesied about the rise of the Macedonian Empire out of Greece. Daniel's prophecies are so direct that some scholars have tried to move his historical lifetime closer to Alexander's to explain their accuracy.

2) People who write for university journals say so

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/sou.33.3_4.23725951?journalCode=sou

The Book of Daniel never mentions Alexander by name, but its Christian commentators saw him foretold in ... Chapters 2,7 ans 8

3) Wikipedia already say so

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_8#The_ram,_the_he-goat,_the_great_horn_and_the_four_new_horns

The ram, the he-goat, the great horn and the four new horns

The symbols of the ram and he-goat, explained in the text of Daniel 8 as representing the kings of Persia and Greece, are apparently drawn from the constellations that preside over Persia and Syria in Hellenistic astrology.[19] Scholars are agreed that the goat's first horn (the horn which is broken) is Alexander the Great, and the four horns which then arise are the four generals who divided his empire.[20] The detail that the goat does not touch the ground as he attacks the ram may reflect the speed of Alexander's conquest.[21]

4) and according to the Roman historian Josephus even ALEXANDER HIMSELF thought so ... Josephus states that Alexander visited Jerusalem, was shown a copy of the Book and Daniel, and was convinced that the Greek king reference inside was HIMSELF!

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/josephus/jewish-antiquities/alexander-the-great-visits-jerusalem/

Alexander the Great visits Jerusalem - Presumably 11.337 reference the place in the histories of Josephus where the comment below can be found in the William Whiston translation.

[11.337] And when the Book of Daniel was showed him wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended. And as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present.

Parting comment: Personally if I was on the opposite side of this argument I would feel that I had just stepped into a bucket of poop. Let's see how self aware the opposite side it.71.174.128.111 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

- this IP editor was previously blocked from editing this Talk page - the block notice said, "blocked the IP from Talk space for 72 hours. Next time everyone please ignore him." - Epinoia (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Have you yet come to the realization that Alexander the Great was Greek or are you still holding out?71.174.128.111 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Prophecy of the 70 weeks explained

From the time when an edict goes out to restore Jerusalem, to the time of the coming of the Messiah is 7 and 62 weeks (of years) or 69 weeks (of years). This is generally taken to mean 483 years (69 times 7).

There are 4 Persian edicts which can be taken as the starting point of this prophecy. Two are for the rebuilding of the Temple, the 3rd for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the 4th an affirmation of the 3rd. The third is therefore the preferred starting point.

This third edict is dated to the 7th year of Artaxerxes who is currently thought to have ruled from 465 to 424 BC. The 7th year of his rule is 458 BC. Adding 483 years to 458 BC bring us to 25 AD. Was there a Messiah preaching an everlasting covenant in Jerusalem in 25 AD? Billions of Christians think so!

The prophecy continues "26 Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off" There is a period of 7 weeks and then a period of 62 weeks. Two periods that total 69 weeks (of years). After the second period is over (in 25 AD) the Messiah will be "cut off" meaning killed. Was the Messiah preaching in Jerusalem killed at some point after 25 AD. Billions of Christians think so! It's called the Crucifixion!

The Messiah will have a week to preach the covenant during which he will put an end to sacrifices. "27And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering." Billions of Christians believe that the Crucifixion put an end to sacrifices and offerings.

Also in Daniel 8:27 is a related prophecy " Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed."

The people reference are the Romans and the prince is Titus, the son of Emperor Vespasian, who destroyed both Jerusalem and the Temple. Once you have the starting date the prophecy is actually easy to decipher.

https://evidenceforchristianity.org/when-was-the-decree-to-restore-and-rebuild-jerusalem-issued-daniel-925/

The third “decree” in Ezra is that of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:11-28. This is a decree to actually rebuild the city. The decree comes from the seventh year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:8). This is somewhere around 458 BC from what we know of Artaxerxes’ reign from outside sources. This decree actually resulted in the rebuilding of Jerusalem under Nehemiah.71.174.128.111 (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

- this IP editor was previously blocked from editing this Talk page - the block notice said, "blocked the IP from Talk space for 72 hours. Next time everyone please ignore him." (emphasis added) - Epinoia (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Have you yet come to the realization that Alexander the Great was Greek or are you still holding out?71.174.128.111 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Prophecy of the 70 weeks

I was asked to comment on this by somebody so I looked into at a bit and see no problem with it being an actual FULFILLED prophecy.

but first things first

Currently wikipedia both misrepresent and also leaves a part of the prophecy out which makes it hard to understand.

wikipedia currently

Chronological predictions: Daniel predicts several times the length of time that must elapse until the coming of the Kingdom of God. A prophecy of Jeremiah is reinterpreted so that "70 years" means "70 weeks of years", and the last half of the last "week" is defined as "a time, times, and half a time," then as 2,300 "evenings and mornings," with further numbers of days at the very end of the book.[39]

My Comment: The actual prophecy states that Daniel predicts the coming of an "anointed one" (also known as the Messiah) and not the Kingdom of God!

wikipedia continues

The "anointed one cut off": Daniel 9 makes two references to an "anointed one," which has had major implications for Christian eschatology. Daniel 9:25 says: "Until there is an anointed ruler will be seven weeks"; in the next verse Daniel 9:26 says: "After the sixty-two weeks the anointed one shall be cut off." Scholars take these as references to the high priest Joshua from the early Persian era and to the high priest Onias III, murdered in the 2nd century, but Christians have taken them both to refer to the death of Christ, which then provides a fixed point for calculating the time to the end of the world.[40]

The above text omits a section of the prophecy - the correct text should be as follows - the missing text is capitalized.

Daniel 9:25 says: "Until there is an anointed ruler (or the Messiah) will be seven weeks AND SIXTY TWO WEEKS"; in the next verse Daniel 9:26 says: "After the sixty-two weeks the anointed (or the Messiah) one shall be cut off." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.128.111 (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

- this IP editor was previously blocked from editing this Talk page - the block notice said, "blocked the IP from Talk space for 72 hours. Next time everyone please ignore him." - Epinoia (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Have you yet come to the realization that Alexander the Great was Greek or are you still holding out?71.174.128.111 (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am using the NASB and similar translation of the Bible - which is why I am grouping the 7 and 62 weeks (of years) time periods.

Daniel 9:25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.

The translation used by wikipedia implies TWO anointed ones. One after the first period of 7 weeks (of years) and another after the following 62 weeks (of years period). Thar would certainly confuse anyone trying to figure out the prophecy. The translation I am using implies only one.71.174.128.111 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

My edits have been undone multiple times

I would request a 3rd person opinion if possible. Thanks --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:ERA is WP:PAG. A third opinion cannot trump WP:PAG. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't know why this user continues to hound me and my edits. There are other people on Wikipedia --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
GoogleMeNowPlease, I have never (to my knowledge) edited this article before. Tgeorgescu is correct according to policy and you are wrong according to policy. Your edits (changing BCE to BC, etc.) were inappropriate and should be reverted. Now that you know about this policy, we'll expect you to follow it, here and elsewhere. You are not being hounded. You are recently unblocked and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines everywhere. Someone pointing out to you that you are failing and heading quickly toward a reblock is not considered hounding. --Yamla (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The first day after being unblocked you have violated WP:ERA twice. I choose not to look the other way when people violate WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Yalma: I do not personally agree with BCE, but changing BCE to BC was not my main edit. My main edit was adding the Josephus reference --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
So? Have I reverted your Josephus reference? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Yes, you have. And this is not the first time you hound me and the articles I edit. I do not wish to argue with you. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Not accurate. Now, drop the stick and walk away, immediately. See WP:STICK and WP:ROPE. You've been substantially disruptive since being unblocked. You won't get another warning. --Yamla (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
GoogleMeNowPlease, Tgeorgescu did not revert your edit of Josephus, but I did, after this conversation began and before I'd read it. To restate my reason at somewhat greater length: Josephus is an ancient source, and therefore irrelevant in an article that tries to find and reflect modern scholarship. This falls within the way we use sources on Wikipedia, at least regarding subjects with a scholarly basis: we reflect the modern consensus, we ignore ancient sources. If you'd like to know why I'm happy to tell you, but first I really do advise you to be less paranoid and more collegial.Achar Sva (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Achar Sva: I gave up debating, because it will probably give me brain cancer, but I just do not see how what you say makes sense. No one was arguing that Josephus is somehow a source against modern Academic consensus of Daniels's authorship. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is NOT a college level textbook guide to Biblical scholarship. Encyclopedias include academic consensus, of course, but also art, culture, impact on pop culture etc. It seems to me that omitting famous references to Daniel in works of classical literature, is simple gatekeeping, for no good reason. But I do not actually expect you to understand this. In fact, I would be surprised if your response to this was anything but repeating your misconception about what I already addressed GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Evidence of having been written in 6th century BC, not 2nd century BC.

Copyvio https://christian-apologist.com/2019/09/06/when-was-the-book-of-daniel-written/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:C400:6070:9518:3115:6DD9:3B4B (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman has stated:

This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions!

The strongest argument about it is that post-Enlightenment historians do not work with precognition. So for historians, all prophecies about Jesus must be bunk, since the writers of the Old Testament had no interest of speaking about him, even if they would have known him. Hint: they weren't Christians.
Bart D. Ehrman (23 September 1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. p. 197. ISBN 978-0-19-983943-8. As I've pointed out, the historian cannot say that demons—real live supernatural spirits that invade human bodies—were actually cast out of people, because to do so would be to transcend the boundaries imposed on the historian by the historical method, in that it would require a religious belief system involving a supernatural realm outside of the historian's province.
We should obey WP:YESPOV. Bona fide history departments have been wholly sold out to methodological naturalism. Post-Enlightenment historians think that supernatural prophecies are bunk. So, no, Ehrman is not alone in endorsing methodological naturalism. In fact, its opponents are WP:FRINGE/PS by our book.
The problem at this article are POV-pushers who are unaware (ignoramuses) that the history has been purged of the supernatural. For these POV-pushers inside Wikipedia is Catch-22, if the source says those prophecies were genuine, it is not reliable, since it is WP:FRINGE/PS (pseudohistory). The claim of genuine prophecies about Jesus is methodologically unsound.
Tabor, James D. (2016). "Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Millennialism". In Wessinger, Catherine (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Millennialism. Oxford Handbooks Series (reprint ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 256. ISBN 9780190611941. Retrieved 7 September 2020. The book of Daniel becomes foundational for the Jewish or Jewish-Christian millenarian vision of the future that became paradigmatic [...]. [...] One of the great ironies in the history of Western ideas is that Daniel's influence on subsequent Jewish and Christian views of the future had such a remarkable influence, given that everything predicted by Daniel utterly failed! [...] One might expect that a book that had proven itself to be wrong on every count would have long since been discarded as misguided and obsolete, but, in fact, the opposite was the case. Daniel's victory was a literary one. [...] Daniel not only survived but its influence increased. The book of Daniel became the foundational basis of all Jewish and Christian expressions of apocalyptic millenarianism for the next two thousand years.

I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the "predictions" prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion: the people who claim that the book was written in 6th century BCE are completely ignorant of the historical method. They ignore that some claims are forfeited by the epistemology of history. So, it is futile to argue a bunch of facts, when its epistemology cannot deliver the begged conclusion. The Book of Daniel was written based upon some earlier sources, nobody has denied that. Epistemologically, history cannot have miracles (such as prophecies). That would be like saying that angels are living beings so the study of angels is part of biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Jetstream423 (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)While asserting the accuracy of a particular believe or prophecy clearly has no place in Wikipedia, the study of what various groups of people believe (or have believed) and the prophecies that may have motivated various actions at various points in history should certainly remain within the realm of legitimate academic pursuits. When a substantial group of people accept a particular interpretation, their acceptance itself is a fact that is worthy of being recorded in Wikipedia, even though no Wikipedia author should suggest that the interpretation itself is correct, since that is a matter of belief.
Yup, and we have a nice and neat solution therefore: Wikipedia only listens (in that respect) to mainstream Bible scholars. What they say Protestants believed in the 18th century, we report as fact (the fact that the Protestants believed such and such). Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Historian Josephus

According to the Historian Josephus, Alexander was shown the prophecies that the Greeks would destroy Persia, written in the Book of Daniel. If Daniel was written around 165 BC, that would date Alexander to about 100-150 BC - a totally hopeless position to take. LOL!!

Josephus wrote his Histories toward the end of the 1st century AD and is the main source of information on that era.

“. . . 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. . .”

from Jewish Antiquities by Josephus. 108.20.180.22 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Josephus is not a modern historian, so, no, Josephus did not write WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:ERA

@StAnselm and Paokara777: At https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Daniel&type=revision&diff=649103468&oldid=649103258&diffmode=source it was a BCE article. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It was certainly a BC article originally. There have been a few discussions about changing it, most recently in 2016 (featuring both you and me), but there has never been any consensus. Perhaps this discussion will produce one. StAnselm (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Incorrect, it was edited in late 2020 by user : @2001:16B8:C111:2100:8CAD:6CF2:848:14E2 who switched the BC and AD to BCE / CE respectively with no explanation or reason why.
This goes against Wikipedia's policy that both the Common Era and Before Christ methods of notation are acceptable, and not to change them for no reason.
In this context (a Biblical book) it make far more sense to use the more Biblical approach of using BC and AD rather than the secular version BCE and CE. @Paokara777 Paokara777 (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
"A Biblical book." It is book primarily in the Hebrew Bible. It is, by onward adoption, a book in the Christian Bible. So the term "Biblical approach" is ambiguous; and doesn't resolve anything. The origins in Hebrew Bible, and its derivative use in Christian Bible lean quite strongly in the opposite direction: towards BCE/CE rather than BC/AD. Feline Hymnic (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
BCE is a secular term. It removes the reference to "Christ" who was a prominent Jewish historical person of to which the dating method is based around. Regardless of if you think that the Book of Daniel is more Hebrew than Christian it doesn't change the Wikipedia rules. A BC article stays a BC article, which this one was. It was changed randomly by an anonymous IP user in late 2020 for no reason with no notation. Paokara777 (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a RfC about it, which is going nowhere, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Big surprise. Discussions on the topic of ERA seem to be circular. Dimadick (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This discussion would apply to every book in the Hebrew Bible, which has Jewish origins, and whose component texts were subsequently adopted into the Christian Bible (where they are called the "Old Testament", to distinguish them from the specifically Christian "New Testament").

Does this discussion, then, need to talk place in a wider forum about the Hebrew Bible as a whole, and including the Christian Bible. One could well be imagine an outcome of "BCE/CE for books in the HB/OT; BC/AD for books in the Christian NT". What would be a good place for such a discussion? Feline Hymnic (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense, but that is not how WP:ERA works. Of course, logically all the Hebrew Bible articles would use the Hebrew calendar instead of BC/BCE. StAnselm (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
For info: I've just opened a discussion "MOS:ERA on multiple related articles" at the MOS talk page. Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Era: BC or BCE, please vote

Please indicate below whether you would like this article to be BC or BCE.Achar Sva (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

But why not all OT books? If we change the status quo on this article, why not all of them? StAnselm (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Simply because I don't know enough about all of them, there might be good arguments for BC for all I know. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
There are OT books that are not in the HB, the Deuterocanonical books, such as the Book of Judith. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't the Septuagint version of the HB (later adopted into some versions of the OT) include the deuterocanonical books (+/- edge cases)? Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
That is not "currently" Jewish, ie not included in the Jewish canon for over 1,500 years, but in some Christian canons. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • BC, Daniel is as much a Christian book as a Jewish one, its cultural influence in English has come through Christianity (all those Catholic Renaissance paintings), and it's a common text for sermons, to the point of cliché. Whether we use BC or BCE here is just a matter of personal preference imo 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • BCE as originally & currently a "Jewish" book, but that should not automatically apply to all OT books. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Curious. By way of example, could you provide two HB/OT books where differing particular criteria could be in operation, and why, please? Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • BCE This is, at the end of the day, a religious discussion/debate. The book is undoubtedly very important in the Christian tradition, and that is why it generates so much (religious) "passion." But if Wikipedia is to stand as a secular, non-religious encyclopedia, then the secular option should be preferred, wherever possible. This seems to be to me, one of those possible cases. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 17:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • BCE: modern, sensitive choice. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • BCE It is a Jewish book, and we should not mention Jesus as Dominus. Dimadick (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Abstain / Common Third Day instead of Wednesday, because this is a Jewish/Christian book, and using the name Wednesday invokes the pagan deity Woden. Sarcasm aside, arguing for BCE because an article's content isn't "sufficiently Christian", or vice versa, is patently ridiculous. It's a Christian calendar system, it's a European-pagan calendar system... nothing about how you word that is going to change a thing.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 19:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • BC Cause we are adults. 65.94.99.91 (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't care Just adopt a site-wide binding rule which ends the edit warring about WP:ERA. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • BC There are already guidelines put in place to determine which notation we should use. This article should stay BC as per the guidelines Paokara777 (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • BC - no reason to change the existing guidelines, and Daniel is a book in the Christian Bible. As a book of the Jewish Bible the article about it should also have the Jewish date. It seems very POINTy to omit both forms of religious date in favour of a secular one. Ingratis (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Ingratis you're welcome to your views on the issue, but please show good faith to those editors who support BCE. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note that the guidelines say that "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content" - any !votes that don't do this should be ignored. Remember also that this is not actually a vote. As in for example an AFD, it's the weight of the arguments that should count. See WP:NOTVOTE. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I was wondering about that. In fact, the heading says "please vote", and indeed there are straw polls here on Wikipedia. So it would be unfair for the closing editor to ignore those votes. I see most people are including reasons, but when it comes down to it, era styles are very much a matter of personal preference. StAnselm (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
No, the closing editor has to follow the guidelines, plus policy says “ Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.” Doug Weller talk 18:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • BCE as people have noted above. This is a Jewish book. Unrelated to this question, I'm sure there could be a programmatic solution that changes the visual text between "BC" and "BCE" depending upon user's preference, but that is not part of this RFC. Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Except this isn't actually an RfC. It's a vote. StAnselm (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Not a vote in the sense that only numbers count. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • BCE. As a text with importance to both Jewish and Christian traditions, the article should not use a dating style that favours one of those religions over the other when a common neutral option is available. Also, endorse Doug Weller's comment above. The relevant guideline only sets out how to resolve a dispute in the absence of consensus. It doesn't provide any guidance on how to form a consensus as to which style an article should use, other than to say that it should be based on "reasons specific to its content".--Trystan (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • BC. Because that is what the original non-stub article used and the MOS says nothing about dividing it down religious lines (nor should it as that could get really messy and confusing). Masterhatch (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Over-strong assertion

"Without this belief, Christianity… would have disappeared," cited to a single source. Surely unless we can find far more citation for this claim, we should be saying that a single author asserts that, rather than saying it as a fact in the narrative voice of the article. I would think it takes a pretty strong consensus among scholars before a Wikipedia article should assert a counterfactual. - Jmabel | Talk 21:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  • It's been a few days, no response, I will edit accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 20:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • And now User:Achar Sva has reverted, saying only "restore sourced text." Obviously, both versions are equally "sourced." The question is whether Daniel R. Schwartz is enough of an authority that we should accept a counterfactual scenario from him without indicating where it came from. I would say emphatically that he is not. Achar Sva, please explain how you see this. - Jmabel | Talk 15:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Daniel R. Schwartz is an authority; you, on the other hand, are not. Achar Sva (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@Achar Sva: What "would've" happened to Christianity without a hyper-specific belief is WAY TOO subjective to state as a basic fact. I concur with @Jmabel: that we need to specify its author. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@Achar Sva: For the record, I made no claim to be an authority. Please stick to the matter at hand rather than setting up a straw man. Counterfactual scenarios rarely belong in an encyclopedia. It's probably appropriate to say that some particular authority makes the assertion, but it is another thing to state that opinion as fact. If you can cite several who've concurred, then this might amount to some sort of scholarly consensus. Can you? - Jmabel | Talk 19:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Jmabel, your edit was based on your personal opinion, not on any source. Please stick to sources.Achar Sva (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@Achar Sva: please, see the rules on attribution. 70.24.86.150 (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not ask the question "is it true?", it only asks if whether the information is correctly sourced - meaning, is the source a reliable one, and is it notable. In this case the source is certainly reliable (a professor at Hebrew University), and there's no evidence of any contrary opinion. Therefore, we do not add personal caveats (although we never do that anyway). Now, if you want this to continue, take it to dispute resolution. Achar Sva (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Posted at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Book_of_Daniel. I tried to keep the statement there as neutral as possible, but if someone thinks my notice there is biased, please indicate how you'd prefer to word it. - Jmabel | Talk 02:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It's pure speculation! How can any of us know what would've happened if history had been different? I can see no basis for owning this speculative hypothetical stuff. It may be logically true, but the editors of Wikipedia do not use WP:CRYSTAL balls to look into the future, nor into alternate Bizarro World universes where Jesus isn't risen from the dead. 70.190.16.70 (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses reliable sources, and does not add editorial comment to them. Achar Sva (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I have added attribution. It's obviously an opinion rather than a fact. And it's a very big claim, too. StAnselm (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. This claim should be attributed, not stated as fact. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
It's a big claim to say that Christianity depends on belief in the resurrection of Jesus? Rather an odd statement from a Christian. Achar Sva (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I had thought Schwartz was saying a belief in the afterlife as it is in Daniel 12. Now I see that he's not talking about Daniel at all, so I think the whole sentence should be removed. We might still be able to find someone to say something about the impact of Daniel 12 on Christianity. StAnselm (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
StAnselm, I am unable to see that page in the book; any possibility you might be willing to provide the relevant sentence? Dumuzid (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Sure: "We must emphasize at the outset, however, that any historical study of religion has its bounds: there are data, at times very important ones for a religion, which historians must leave untouched. Christianity is based upon one such datum: the perceived resurrection of Jesus, without which the movement would certainly have disappeared along with the movements following other charismatic figures in first-century Judaism." StAnselm (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you -- and yes, I agree, given that there's no express linkage to Daniel, I think the sentence is both a bit undue and a bit synth-y. I would therefore support removal and finding a different way to discuss the influence of Daniel 12. Happy to go wherever consensus takes us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Resurrection of Jesus

The book clearly says without the perceived resurrection of Jesus, Christianity have disappeared and it does not say without the Daniel's belief of "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt" Christianity have disappeared. Even Daniel isn't even named in the reference, nor does the book of Daniel mention the name "Jesus".

What the book actually says is the following:

"We must emphasize at the outset, however, that any historical study of religion has its bounds: there are data, at times very important ones for a region, which historians must leave untouched. Christianity is based upon one such datum: the perceived resurrection of Jesus, without which the movement would certainly have disappeared along with the movements following other charismatic figures in first-century Judaism."

And what the user Achar Sva wrote says the following: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt." Without this belief, Christianity, in which the resurrection of Jesus plays a central role, would have disappeared."

They are completely different versions.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

They are identical. But thank you for engaging. Now please start a process for dispute resolution. Achar Sva (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
If you added this content, it is up to you to defend it. See WP:BRD. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm inclined to delete it as WP:SYNTH. StAnselm (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
It's not synthesis, it's from the source. Achar Sva (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@Achar Sva: What are we supposed to resolve? You are alone against 3-4 people all of whom are trying to explain to you why we do not consent to the idea that something so speculative should be stated as a fact. This isn't something that happened in the past. This is one man's opinion on what the trajectory of Christianity would have been without a particular belief. We indicate who states it and move on.70.24.86.150 (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@Achar Sva:Both versions do not say the same thing, when Daniel quotes "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt." it refers to the final judgment and the general resurrection, it does not refer to the resurrection of Jesus. They are two completely different events.Please Achar Sva user, stop manipulating the texts to your liking as you have always used to do.Rafaelosornio (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry Rafael but you're just incapable of reading. Achar Sva (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
When you write "without this belief" what do you mean? Because you never mention the "resurrection of Jesus" before. The book never says that without immortality and the resurrection Christianity would have disappeared. Nor does it say that without the first clear statement that is found in the final chapter of Daniel's book: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt" Christianity would have disappeared. The book only says that without the resurrection of Jesus. What part of "resurrection of Jesus" do you not understand? Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Achar Sva, I am afraid that I have to agree with the general take here; to state this in wikivoice I would want to see evidence that it was a generally held view among scholars, otherwise I think attribution is proper--especially since it's an inherently speculative claim (and one with which I happen to agree). Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Dumuzid, the belief in the resurrection of Jesus is common to all Christians, or so I understand. I don't think it's unreasonable for our article to say that "without this belief (i.e., in the resurrection), Christianity, in which the resurrection of Jesus plays a central role, would have disappeared." Nor is it unreasonable to point out the belief first appears in Daniel Achar Sva (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Achar Sva, your editing here has become tendentious to say the very least. The sentence you are quoting is not even expressly tied to Daniel. As far as I can tell, every single editor who has weighed in here disagrees with you. What is unreasonable is for you to edit against consensus and exhibit such blatant WP:OWN behavior. Dumuzid (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Please note that User:Achar Sva continues to restore their preferred wording, in defiance of WP:BRD and this discussion. If this continues, they should be reported. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Book_of_Daniel/Archive_11&oldid=1178813940"