Talk:Daniel 2/Archive 1

Archive page

Remembering the Dreams

Traditional interpretation of the KJV indicates that Nebudchadnezzar could not remember his dreams: "The thing is gone from me," he says. Modern translations suggest that his words actually mean, "I have already given my command...tell me the dream and its interpretation...." Later, Nebuchadnezzar indicates why he won't tell his dream interpreters the dream. Essentially, he fears they will just agree on an interpretation that may or may not be correct. He figures that if they can miraculously conjure up the dream correctly, then he can also trust their interpretation.

Does anyone think this information should be included as its own section/subheading with references, or should it simply be a single sentence? -Milkncookie 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ties to Daniel 7 & 8

In Daniel 7 and 8, Daniel receives visions of his own, the interpretations of which bear a strong resemblance to Nebuchadnezzer's dream in Daniel 2. Should this be referenced and expanded upon anywhere? -Milkncookie 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations, encyclopedic quality and POV

Resolved

Just a general comment on this article. This is not a place for debates about interpretation of the prophecies, or assertions of personal views and personal analyses. We must strive to create an article of Encyclopedic quality, which is adheres to neutral point of view, and all content must be verifiable. This is the Wikipedia standard. As such, the article needs many more citations from reputable sources--in other words, published, scholarly material such as commentaries, Bible dictionaries and theological journal articles.

Can I please also point out that merely referencing the Bible is not sufficient. The Bible can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and by citing the Bible you are only citing your own private interpretation--as such it is not NPOV.

I agree with Codex Sinaiticus that the tables appearing on this article (and other Daniel related articles) are Original Research, totally subjective, and "just looks bad and ruins the article". Unless they can be clearly demonstrated as a reproduction of a reputable published work, they should be removed. Tonicthebrown 10:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for recent edition

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

This is addressed to an unnamed user 71.253.143.177, who reverted the content of the article on 25/5/07 on the grounds that "Original Research arrangement; also this is a BC article formst, not BCE".

Please note that my editions significantly improved the encyclopedic quality of this article. Factual information about the dating and Aramaic language of Daniel 2 is more appropriate in a separate section near the beginning (as will be found in most commentaries on the passage), rather than lumped in with interpretation. Secondly, I strongly dispute that my changes were "Original Research". I have added citations from a reputable Daniel commentary, where previously there were none, thus adding to the verifiability of this article (by contrast the previous edition was more liable to the charge of OR). Thirdly, the older edition was somewhat convoluted with unnecessary repetition and poor prose; both these problems were addressed in my changes. Fourthly, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, "CE" and "BCE" are acceptable for use on Wikipedia--if you prefer BC/AD notation, you are welcome to change it yourself, without reverting all of my work. If you disagree with what I have said, please raise it here on the talk page before making unreasonable reversions. Thank you Tonicthebrown 09:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Tonicthebrown vs. 71.253.143.177: Work reverted based on CE/BCE

You don't seem to understand the policy regarding BC and BCE. Yes, both formats are acceptable, but the policy is that they should be consistent within an article. Articles should not be going back and forth between one format and the other. If the article is in BC format, it should not be changed to BCE format, nor vice versa. All dates should use a consistent format which in this case is BC format and it is not acceptable to change from one to the other. As for whether or not you improved the article by moving the dating section to the top, that is a subjective opinion, not a fact. Since as it is written, starting out "aside from the scholarly view that..." it presupposes that the scholarly view has already been discussed, as it was in the orginal version. Moving it to the beginning is therefore too jarring, and it should be restored to the order in which it was written for coherence sake. Starting a section out with the word "However" is also extremely bad form, not necessarily an "improvement". And talk about "personal views and analyses" - how about your version that asserts Jesus was referring to the events of 70 AD? That is pure speculation. Rather than insert ou personal views, we should adhere faithfully to the text without adding our own window dressing. The text states clearly several times that these are prophecies of the "Last Days" immediately preceding Judgement Day, both throughout Daniel and in Matthew, I am quite sure that this is usually taken to mean the Last Days of this corrupt world, not the Last Days of the Second Temple. So the original version that reads "Last Days" is more accurate to the actual text than your version, which seems unnecessarily partial to the 70 AD interpretation. Also I do not see any good reason for cutting out the statement that the identification of the gold head is not in dispute. In short, I do not see any of these changes as improvements, with the possible exception of your source, which needs verification. However, rather than engage in a wholesale revert, I will fix these problems one at a time. 71.253.129.35 12:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to respond, and for not reverting my work again. I appreciate that. I do not object to BC/AD notation. I'm more than happy for it to be used here. Aramaic language discussion belongs in a separate section, as it is not an analytical/interpretative issue, but a text-critical one. AD 70 view is held by the majority of New Testament scholars -- it is not my private opinion. I've added a citation from Craig Blomberg, a prominent NT scholar. I have also read numerous commentaries on Mark 13 and Matthew 24, which all support the AD 70 interpretation. The "last days" interpretation is only held by a minority of futurist interpreters. If you want it to have credibility, you will need to add a reputable reference. Tonicthebrown 02:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Hint: Try looking for some modern artistic representations of the statue. Pay close attention to the labels. Til Eulenspiegel 02:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Exactly. There are numerous artistic representations of it, just look on Google images, you can find hundreds of different ones, and every one I have ever seen that has labels, has the legs as Rome and the feet as the world powers who are the heirs of Babylon in the last days, long after 70 AD. Most of them put the split of the Roman Empire into East and West as the two legs. In the artistic world, this view is the absolute majority, maybe even a monopoly, since I have never yet seen a "70 AD" scheme for the image. However, it seems the crowd who wants to push the POV that Daniel and Jesus were prophesizing events of 70 AD, have a rather condescending view towards all those of the other POV who take the texts that say clearly "Last Days" as meaning exactly that, and that condescension is rearing its head now with comments like "only held by a minority of futurist interpreters." I propose we do not push either POV (or the 130 BC POV either) or try to squeeze out the views you DON'T like by suggesting they are somehow more fringe and less valid than your own view that they were prophets speaking of 70 AD. As you can easily verify just by looking up the above mentioned images, there are numerous futurist interpretations and schemes that could be cited, and whether they are indeed a "minority" just because you have the other POV, is highly contentious. But the problem we usually see on wikipedia once you start the condescension and demonizing of a certain POV, and the "enshrining" of a rival POV as having the "blessing" of the "consensus" (there are actually very few consensi whatsoever anywhere in the field of prophect interpretation) is that no matter how many hundreds of these futurist views are cited, you will bat each one away and claim that they are all invalid because you think you have demonstrated that only the "Prophecy of 70 AD" view is justified. Please try to be open minded and allow the majority of futurist sites to exist here, since they do in the real world as well, rather than try to make the encyclopedia dig its head in the sand and say only the lazy virgins exist and the wise ones don;t, "I am I and who else is there", and therefore everyone should be complacent and not give these pophecies due attention that the text of Matthew demands for them. There are many who believe in a Messiah today, ONLY because they see Babylon all around them today and are waiting for it to change, not pretending that all this prophecy already happened in 130 BC or 70 AD and therefore this is now the Kingdom of Heaven. Maybe the perspective of some is different because they see the Kingdom of Heaven all around them on the Earth today, well just remember that POV is not the only one. 71.253.129.35 10:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC) I am disappointed that you feel the need to criticise me so harshly. I am not trying to be "condescending" or to "demonise" people with a futurist interpretation. One wonders whether you are perhaps over sensitive about this issue. I have merely stated the simple fact that the majority of the scholarly world applies Daniel and Mark 13/Matthew 24 (particularly the reference to "abomination of desolation") to AD 70 primarily, and to the end times secondarily or not at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it must represent all points of view fairly. Popular views certainly deserve mention (and please note that at no point have I ever attempted to remove the futurist interpretation from the article), but in the end, the interpretation of scholars (from across the liberal-evangelical spectrum) must have precedence over what you find on Google. Please read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, and you will find that there are certain standards for what counts as a reliable source. I have provided numerous citations from reputed scholars, such as N.T. Wright and Craig Blomberg. If you can cite reliable sources for the futurist perspective, that will increase the support for your position, and I invite you to do so. You might find that George Eldon Ladd has a semi-futurist perspective, but in the end he also makes a link to AD 70. Perhaps there are other scholars you can consult. Tonicthebrown 15:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC) It's your attitude manifested by statements that the opinions oif the scholars and scribes "must have precedence" that causes me to feel so strongly. "Must have precedence" is not NPOV. Equal means equal. A statement like "must have precedence" is proof of a pov pushing agenda. The POV of the gospel itself with regard to the scholars and the scribes is also clear. Then there are those who are Christian in name, but who obviously sympathize more with the powers represented by the statue, than with the one symbolized by the rock. The "popular" view as you describe it is of vital importance because this chapter is the thing that gives millions of suffering people hope in God's Kingdom, so it's not going away and wikipedia is a place to report faithfully on what people actually believe, not a place to make yet another attempt to "teach" them to believe something other than what they believe. What the scholars and scribes believe is not surprising, and only to be expected, but they already have enough bvenues to make their case. So, have you found any 70 AD folk who actually say anything like the Statue of Babylon finally collapsed in 70 AD, in specific relation to Daniel chap. 2? Or are they just talking about the other chapters in Daniel in general? 71.253.129.35 15:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Please understand that I'm merely trying to uphold wikipedia's standards. Quote from WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Wikipedia itself says that reliable sources (such as found in published books, commentaries and articles) have priority over websites found on a Google search (which are by and large self-published). As I have said repeatedly, if you can find a reputable source which supports the futurist view, then by all means include it in the article. My agenda is not to "teach" a particular POV and suppress another, it is to represent the range of POVs fairly. If one view has more scholarly support, then that has to be mentioned. Other views of course should be mentioned too, and again I point out that I have never deleted the futurist statements from the article, nor relegated them to footnotes (as someone did to the AD 70 view). If you want to stress the (alleged) wide popularity of the futurist view, then the best thing would be to find an article with a statistic saying "xxx% of Christians believe in futurism". Provided it is a reputable source, it would be very appropriate here. In response to your question, the AD 70 view relates mainly to the later parts of Daniel; however, many people who hold this view believe that AD 70, along with Jesus' birth, death and resurrection, were part of the inauguration of the kingdom of God which is represented by the stone in the vision. The kingdom is considered spiritually rather than physically of course. Tonicthebrown 16:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Well you still haven't answered the question. Have you found any who SPECIFICALLY assert the 70 AD view with relation to the Statue vision of Daniel 2? That would be relevant to this article. 71.253.129.35 16:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC) At the moment I lack the time to track down specific views of individual commentators. However, most proponents of realized eschatology (such as C. H. Dodd) and inaugurated eschatology (such as J. Jeremias and Ladd) would most likely say that to some extent the kingdom of God is here already, since the time of Jesus, and thus the stone of Daniel 2 is already partially fulfilled (although the kingdoms of men, represented by the statue, are still active). Tonicthebrown 08:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Medes

Under analysis listed as the silver chest and arms of the statue the Medes are listed. i was wondering when it was that the Medes took Babylon and so became a part of this "geneology" of empires. The verbage in the article states that this is the opinion of scholars but lacks any reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dieci (talk • contribs) 03:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Cyrus the Great entered Babylon in October of 539 BC (SSJPabs 06:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

The main article states:

"The four empires represented by the statue have often been interpreted by scholars as 1) Babylonia, 2) the Medes, 3) Persia, and 4) Alexander the Great’s Empire. This is in keeping with the scholarly theory that the book of Daniel is a pseudepigraph dated to 168 BC, and refers to Antiochus Epiphanes and the successors of Alexander.

However, some Christians do not accept this interpretation, because Jesus is said in Matthew 24 to have quoted Daniel as a prophet who foretold the "end times" immediately preceding Judgement Day, and not in reference to Epiphanes who had lived nearly 200 years before Jesus."

This gives the impression that 'scholars' are not Christians and Christians are not 'scholars.' However, no references to the 'scholars' or their findings is mentioned, nor do the 'scholars' have anything to say about the reference of Jesus in Matthew 24 to the book of Daniel?

Duplicate Sections

The section 'Daniel's Interpretation' is a later addition and duplicates the same information (but in lesser detail) found in 'Synthesis of Dream and Interpretation'. I removed "Daniel's Interpretation" section because it was unnecessary. Allenroyboy 16:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Paraphrase

"A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning." [dictionary.com] The 'Dream and Interpretation in parallel' illustration is a paraphrase of the original published document (i.e. the Bible). The Biblical texts are not changed in anyway but simply presented in another form. Just how common or unusual the method of paraphrasing of the Bible is completely irrelevant. And it does not reflect my POV. It seems to me that this does not in any way violate the rules of Wikipedia. So, I'm putting it back into the text, untill someone can prove otherwise. Allenroyboy 16:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't put it in the text. I thought you were going to wait for a second or third opinion. But it just looks bad and ruins the article. Even when I click on it, it is extremely hard to read and forces me to squint. The colors are garish. A wiki-table at least would be much easier for other editors to edit if they disagree with any aspect of it. And now that I look at it again, I am more convinced than ever that it is OR and the very definition of a "novel synthesis" because there is no authority provided but your own for deciding which verses are parallel to which verses. Find someone else published who draws these same parallels, please. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

1. If other editors agree with you they can remove it.

2. The .jpg is easy to read. click on it once to go to the image's wiki page. Then click on it again which will download the image to your browser. If it still is not full size, click on the zoom and it will appear perfectly clear. It's not my fault that wikipedia doesnt disply the image correctly on the image page.

3. If you have not seen the parallel image clearly, then it is likely that you have not yet seen how simple and easy to comprehend the parallel paraphrase is.

4. I will look into doing it in a table, however, it would shove the rest of the article down several pages worth. Allenroyboy 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Colors Garish?

The colors were chosen to go with the metals. Gold -- Yellow, Silver -- light gray, Brass -- yellow-orange, Iron -- dark gray, Iron and Clay -- brown, Stone -- Sky Blue (the color of the Law). Allenroyboy 06:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, which text of Daniel are you using? If you looked at the pre-Theodotion Greek LXX version for instance, which is the oldest known version and substantially different from later ones, chances are you would not find the same number of parallels. The reason the pre-Theodotion Greek LXX is substantially different from later versions (other than the Dead Sea Scrolls with which it agrees) is because a team of rabbis revised the now-lost original Hebrew version of Daniel some time around the 2nd C. BC and produced an entirely different Hebrew text, now known as the MT, which is what all modern versions are based on but not at all the original Book of Daniel. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to consider what Theodotion's Daniel says. Where can I find one? It certaly isn't very common. Allenroyboy 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Theodotion's Daniel is the revised version that took the place of the original in the LXX. I'm talking about the pre-Theodotion, and you're right, it is even harder to find, let alone in English translation. I have seen it on the web before, however; I will see if I can dig up a link for you... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:22, 31 December 2006 (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. The paraphrase is NOT an analysis nor is it OR. It is simply a paraphrase. Paraphrasing has a long established and well founded history on Wikipedia. If you think the paraphrase is in error change the table at the bottom of the page.

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 05:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

|}

Dream and Interpretation parallel illustration

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

This is not original research. Its published source is the Bible. All that is done in the illustration is to take the dream and interpreation of Daniel 2 exactly as they appear in the NIV and place related words and phrases in obvious parallels. There is nothing added to the Bible or taken away from the Bible. This is completely a NPOV. Allenroyboy 17:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Allenroyboy vs. Codex Sinaiticus( ውይይት ): Original research

Isn't that exactly what is meant by a "novel synthesis" in the wording of the policy? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC) What is so novel? That there are new ideas? or The arrangment in parallel? Everyone who has ever studied the prophecy and interpretation has in their mind (or perhaps on paper) the arranged related verses and synthsized them. This illustration does not do anything unusual. And usually, a "novel synthesis" means a new, different or strange interpretation or understanding of some topic. I present nothing new or different here. This is what the Bible says. Allenroyboy 18:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC) It may be old material, but the synthesis itself seems to be novel. Can you show that anyone else has arranged them in exactly that way? You should be able to if it is not OR. Like you said, anyone might make them parallel in their mind, but they might not all do it in exactly the same way as you have done. I want to know if any published source has ever arranged it exactly as you have done. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC) So are you saying that EVERYTHING ELSE that is presented in the rest of the article is EXACTLY the way it is presented by others elsewhere? No one has ever done any paraphrasing? Allenroyboy 18:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC) No, of course not... I suppose maybe I am being a little stricter in this case, because this is an image that you created yourself... I guess I should see if I can get some other opinions on the image from some other editors, it just strikes me as kind of being a 'novel synthesis or arrangement' but I could be wrong... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC) I created the image because it was easier to insert into the document rather than a large table with the Bible verses in parallel in it. I could have written this same information in sentence and paragraph format quoting the verses from the bible side by side. The purpose being to show the Biblical relationship between the verses. This was purely mechanical. My POV is irrelevant. Allenroyboy 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Instead of making the spreadsheet illustration I could have written: Prophecy: "The head of the statue was made of pure gold," vs. 32 Interpretation: "You, O king, are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; in your hands he has placed mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold." vs. 37-38 What's the difference? None that I can see. There is no original thinking or research. It is just obviously related verses of the Bible put in intimate context. There is none my POV Allenroyboy 01:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC) A question on the Interpretation: Is there any sources that argue that the clay-iron mix is the Western Roman and Byzantine Empires as one crumbled away and the other existed for another 1000 years? The vision of the stone that crushes the statue is associated with Christianity and you could extend that to the Crusades that sacked Constantinople and the conquest by the Muslim Turks. The Crusades at least directed by "God" (and the Pope of course!) and perhaps the Islamic desire to spread their religion as a motivating factor in Turkish expansion (along with the obvious secular power). SSJPabs 06:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I have never seen or heard of sources for any such argument, so absent those, it would strictly be OR. Til Eulenspiegel 13:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC) The illustration with the synthesis seems like a user's original work, why is it totally replacing the literal account? Til Eulenspiegel 16:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Regarding the interpretation of the Roman Empire - please note that it is a historical reality that the Roman Empire did not end in 476 AD. Just because the reader of this passage wishes the legs of iron to be the Roman Empire cannot change history to fit into their own preconceptions. Fact - the legitimate line of emperors and legal Roman authority as invested in the emperors and the imperial senate continued in an uninterupted fashion until at least 1204. The Roman Empire in the East continued to declare itself the only legitimate authority in all of the former provinces of the empire. Further, the Roman Empire was not the last of the great world empires from the perspective of eastern Europe and the Middle East - the Ottoman Empire did exist and it did occupy the territory formally administered by the Romans until the 14th Century. This is not merely my POV but historical fact. If the argument is that all the legs of iron represent is the Western Empire and the feet of clay the kingdoms in the west that arose in the centuries that followed, then make it, but do not simply delete a legitimate and sourced line of argument just because it contradicts your own view of what the legs represent. If your argument is legitimate, it will withstand historical scrutiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.143.148 (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Dear anonymous user: Please give our policies a good read, particularly WP:NPOV. If you are going to use pov sources, any POVs must be attributed to those sources and not presented as fact, because the POVs you are pushing as fact are not without controversy. Even if you think the facts preclude the interpretation actually held by many religious groups (this is often the case) we do not label those religions "misconceptions" because that is not neutral. You can state whose POV it is that it is a "misconception", however. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Islam The article contains no referenceis to Islam's interpretation. The Holy Qur'an with English Translation and Commentary by Maulana Muhammand Ali The Cow Part 2 Section 18 Verse 149 "The Black Stone is unhewn, so it is the stone that was cut out of the mountain without hands (Dan 2:45)"80.92.56.42 (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Appendix Resolved This page contains an appendix table. The chapter 2 appendix table is also on Prophetic beasts of Daniel (Appendix)#Daniel chapter 2. Having the Appendix table on this page distracts from its content. I propose that the Appendix section just wikilinks to the Chapter 2 appendix link that I mentioned above. User: Til Eulenspiegel has already objected to the link, are there any other objections? Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Til Eulenspiegel vs. Jasonasosa: Froom's Appendix (Round 1) Yes. On your talk page you admit you don't even know what BPGR means, and that you are doing this with a view to calling for the material to be eventually deleted. At any rate, there are no beasts mentioned in this chapter so why move it to "prophetic beasts of Daniel"??? Original research! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC) That is not my research. You can edit it all you like, you can even change the page name. I really don't care. It burdens and bogs the article down and really doesn't comply with wiki standards. Editors are encouraged to be mindful about how tables are presented on a page. You should know this Til. As far as I'm concerned, it can all be deleted... but I didn't do that. I respected the work and moved it. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC) What do you mean it doesn't "really" comply with wiki standards? It either doesn't, or it does. That's why they are called "standards". They don't exist in someone's head somewhere. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC) I don't see the need to move the appendix, especially to an article about the Beasts of Daniel, that really needs a better title or the appendix needs to be moved back. The appendix is a summary list showing how nearly all of the bible scholars from the time of Christ to the 19th century interpreted the symbols, which is very useful. (BPGR is explained at the bottom of the table) The table was located at the very bottom of the article after all the major content that most people would be looking for, so I don't see how it burdens or bogs down the article. That's why its an 'appendix'. Johnjonesjr (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC) I believe that the table is cumbersome on this page. I propose that it be kept on a seperate page, linked appropriatly. Further, I don't like scrolling through tables to view references. I don't really care what the Appendix page is called.Jasonasosa (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Objection I object to nearly all of the major changes Jason has made without any warning. Numerous wikipedians have contributed to this article on one of the most controversial subjects of all time to ensure every step of the way that it remains neutral. I vastly prefer the multi-editor version. Per WP:BRD, he should not be trying to edit war his version unilaterally without discussing here for consensus of editors. His version starts getting into exegesis and interpretation already in the second sentence of the intro! Please slow down and let's work on improving this article together. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC) The main problem here seems to be your unwillingness to discuss your changes here, but instead edit warring them or trying other tactics. I am ready, willing and able to discuss your changes here at any time. Please do so since that is what this page is here for. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC) If I were unwilling to discuss the changes, I would not have posted: Talk:Daniel 2#Appendix. I made a bold edit, it got reverted, I posted on the discussion page. When I make an initial edit, I am not required by Wikipedia policy to post that initial change on the discussion page. I am allowed to make a bold edit first. Jasonasosa (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC) I didn't mind most of the changes that Jason made. it seemed well thought out and didn't change too much of the original content. (it did seem to depend too much on one source, though.) Johnjonesjr (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC) There was a lot of information in that one source and from that, I was able to build new sections. From there, we could add more content and sources... I was just laying the groundwork.Jasonasosa (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC) It seems like a POV source, so per WP:NPOV its viewpoints should be atrributed, not endorsed, in keeping with the controversial nature of this topic. Many disparate religious organizations make use of this material as you can see, and they all have their own analyses as well, many of which may contradict your source. No doubt the governments following in the footsteps of Babylon in world domination have a vested interest in telling people how to interpret the Bible, but all viewpoints that can be sourced are welcome when it comes to Bible interpretation. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC) If you haven't figured it out yet, everything is POV and the preferred POV that wiki policy encourages are scholarly sources. So I chose Oxford University.Jasonasosa (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Wrong, NPOV is a cornerstone policy and it means there is no such thing as a "preferred POV". Read WP:NPOV carefully. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC) NPOV does not mean No POV... it's ALL POV, is what I'm saying. And the POV I chose is from Oxford University. So pick your poison. Jasonasosa (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC) My only position is ensuring that NPOV is followed and no single POV is endorsed, but all significant POVs are represented. And yes, what widespread religious bodies say about their own canonical texts "IS" considered a significant viewpoint on articles about Bible interpretation, and is at least as significant as what Oxford tells people how to interpret the Bible. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC) I agree with you Til, and since this page has been flooded with religious POV, I'm injecting it with a little secular POV. lol. (squirts syringe) Jasonasosa (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC) There should be no problem with that, just don't go all gung-ho in the opening sentence. The previous WP:LEDE was sufficient to give a bland (neutral) description of what the basic topic is about, IMO. We can certainly attribute the Oxford viewpoints in the body somewhere. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC) I'm considering your earlier point about the intro... I believe you are right, and I am thinking about moving the intro down to the body, but first it needs to be replaced with a newer intro. Also, User: Johnjonesjr gave me a great idea about the Appendix table... I am going to modify it to have a show / hide feature... that way we can choose on our own how we want to view the page! I will be working on this feature hopefully today if that sounds good to you. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Yes, the hide / show feature sounds like a good solution! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC) POV When it comes to topics such as Bible prophecy there are only two positions one can have, either it is real or it is fake. And typically, believers consider it real and non-believers consider it fake. These form the primary POVs on the topic. And typically, the 'scholarly' position is the unbeliever position where there is no god, the texts were written by just men and there is no such thing as prophecy being real and all such claimed prophecy that appears to have come true must have been written after the fact. The believer position is that there is a God, that the texts, though written by men, were inspired by God, and that prophecy of future events is real and they were written before the fact. Both positions should be presented in the article to give a NPOV on the topic. However the NPOV issue is complicated by the use of the word "scholarly" because it has a built in POV. It implies that those who promote the 'scholarly' position are highly educated and open minded, while believers are uneducated, mindless, thoughtless, Bible-thumping country bumpkins. In reality, the believer position has its share of highly educated scholars. One case in point is Sir Issac Newton. He wrote more than twice as many pages on the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation and other Biblical topics than he did on math and physics combined. The real pov issue here has nothing to do with education and intelligence. Rather, it is between belief and unbelief. I'm not sure how to make such a distinction in a WP article. Perhaps finding more neutral wording than 'scholarly' can be a step in the right direction. Johnjonesjr (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC) 'scholarly' can be applied to both believing and non-believing theologians. You can have a Jewish, Christian and an Athiest scholar. It's all interpretation. Jasonasosa (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks, Jason, I had wanted to make the same point! Glad we agree on that... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC) lol...wow! Jasonasosa (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC) I'm glad to see we are thinking the same on this. I just wanted to point out the pov can unconsciously be hidden in the choice of words. Johnjonesjr (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Problem with 'redaction criticism' section Resolved This section builds up a critical argument that the timing of Daniel 2 conflicts with Daniel 1:5. First of all, per WP:SYNTH, is this argument clearly presented in the source? My sources are of the understanding that Daniel 1 takes place at time of the siege of Jerusalem, known to be 597 BC... The 3 year training would thus be complete in 595 BC... Daniel 2 takes place in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign in Jerusalem, which wasn't until after he deposed his last puppet king Zedekiah in 587. I think Bible scholars know this, which is why no one has heard of this 'contradiction' before! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Well, post your sources then and show the contrast in the section. No one is stopping you. Jasonasosa (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC) I will look for some good ones but to repeat my question, is this argument built up by this section clearly presented in the reference given? Or if not would it qualify as WP:SYNTH? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC) The reference is provided for editors to look up the reference themselves and make the determination as to whether it is WP:SYNTH or not. My official answer is: The reference supports the entire paragraph.Jasonasosa (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC) If it helps any... the publisher of the source is, Westminster John Knox Press, which suggests that the analysis of this section could be Presbyterian POV.Jasonasosa (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC) No, the section is right, every Bible Commentary on this verse mentions it as perplexing scholars, even since Josephus, and I have found numerous complicated explanations to resolve it, but the simple one I gave that it refers to the second year of Nebuchadnezzar following the eleven of Zedekiah in Judah (Kings 25) seems to have been missed by many. This fits the storyline of Daniel's career spanning throughout the captivity and into the Persian era. It would make the Statue Vision to occur soon after Nebuchadnezzar extinguished Judah. I am still looking for a good source for that, but until then I guess we'll have to leave it out. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC) I'd be interested to see what you come up with. Jasonasosa (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Daniel 2 edit changes Resolved As requested by User: Til Eulenspiegel, I will post my changes for this article. I am not required to do this by wiki's policy, but for the sake of peace. The main source of my edits for this page are from: editors, Michael D. Coogan, editor ; Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, Pheme Perkins, associate (2007). The new Oxford annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books : New Revised Standard Version (Augm. 3rd ed. ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 1255-8. ISBN 0195288807. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) The publisher is Oxford University Press, so it should ease the audience and editors' minds that this source is free of original research and has scholarly input. Daniel 2 intro edit I am posting a new introduction for Daniel 2. It discusses the source text and initial setting. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC) This exegesis and analysis doesn't belong in the intro. See WP:LEDE for hints about what it is supposed to be: a summary of points contained within the article, as opposed to making arguments that aren't contained anywhere else. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, your edit starts a controversial topic right off with pushing a POV. Daniel 1:1 says no such thing as you claim; it states that Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of JEHOIAKIM. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Okay, I will look into that before I make further edits, to gain more clarity on that analysis. If you feel this content should be moved to another location, feel free to move it. Jasonasosa (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Neb. was already king in Babylon when he came and beseiged Jerusalem in 597 BC (the setting of Dan. 1) . Jehoiakim has been ruling in Jerusalem for 11 years, but as a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar for 3 years - the original text of Daniel may have made this clearer, but it is confusing because then a king with the similar name Jehoiachin ruled for 3 months before Neb. seiged it in 597. Nebuchadnezzar deposed his last puppet in Jerusalem, Zedekiah, in 587 and took the kinghip of Jerusalem himself, so that is what Daniel 2:1 refers to counting his second year as 587 BC. The setting of Daniel 2 is and Nebuchadnezzar's dream is 586 BC, the second year he ruled in Jerusalem, he had of course ruled in Babylon for much longer. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Intro Revised As User: Til Eulenspiegel suggested, I revised the intro with more summary based content. The first draft was moved down into a new section called Daniel 2#Narrative analysis. - Jasonasosa (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Narrative analysis This section is comprised of two sections. I moved the old "Aramaic languages" section up to the fore with some modification and retitled it Daniel 2#Literary criticism. Then I dropped my first intro draft down into a following section called: Daniel 2#Texual criticism. - Jasonasosa (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC) The "Textual crticism" section has now been replaced with new material, a new reference, and has a new title called: Daniel 2#Redaction crticism on 08:53, 1 October 2011. Its source is from: Seow, C.L. (2003). Daniel (1st ed. ed.). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 37. ISBN 0664256759. - Jasonasosa (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Interpretations of idol image This is a summary of my edits from 16:53, 1 October 2011 to 17:16, 1 October 2011. The Daniel 2#Interpretations of idol image is a section originally titled "Analysis". However, this was an improper term, because this section comprises of interpretations specifically concerning Neb's dream image. Within this section was "Discussion of the views", however it was not a discussion... it is criticism of the bible followed by debate, deserving its own section. It was retitled Daniel 2#Criticism of vision and moved to the bottom, because the vision interpretations are older than the modern day criticism. - Jasonasosa (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC) mixing content with analysis. Resolved The only problem I have with the additional material is where it has been put. The content section ought to simply describe the content of chapter 2. The new material is analysis of the meaning of the text and I think it should be moved to the analysis|discussion of views section. Johnjonesjr (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Well, editors are not supposed to recap the verses/content on their own. The editorial material must come from a published source... so all the material I present are from published sources. Not sure how to work around this. Jasonasosa (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC) I went back and reread the paragraphs. They weren't as bad As I first thought, but for the Nebuchadnezzar's Dream section. I repeat it here for discussion. In verses 31-35, Daniel relays the details of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream by describing a large, brilliant statue, or idol, whose head was made of fine gold, a chest and arms of silver, a belly of brass, legs of iron, and feet made partly of iron and partly of clay. The personified giant image in the King's dream,[10] was made up of these metals that were of decreasing worth. They represent the Golden age through the Silver, Bronze and Iron periods. Parallels can also be drawn from Greek (Hesiod, Works and Days), Latin (Ovid, Metamorphosis) and Persian (Bahman Yasht) writings.[11] The mention of clay however is unexpected due to its weakness in substance. There is an irony, or potential humor, that can be drawn by the description of the clay serving as a support for the weightier metals.[12] The first part presents the facts of the text, but the second part (in italics) contains mostly interpretation. When he starts talking about what it means, he is interpreting within his skeptic view point. That part could be put elsewhere. Johnjonesjr (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Okay, I have found a work around. I hope you like it. But first, I have to clarify something. There are four main elements to consider when discussing Bible topics: Analysis = Biblical criticism Interpretation = concentrated POV... lol Commentary = Expositions Criticism = Criticism of the Bible They may at times overlap, or seem to overlap, but they are all unique in their own way. Currently, the content section is mixed more with commentary than "analysis". See Daniel 2#King troubled by dreams for an example of the work around that I hope you will enjoy. The source that I'm using for this workaround is from: Collins, John J. (1984). Daniel : with an introduction to apocalyptic literature (Reprinted. ed.). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 46-49. ISBN 0802800203. - Jasonasosa (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC) NOTIFICATION: of major change The format of Daniel 2#Daniel's interpretation is not encyclopedic. It misuses the layout of scriptural text by not being properly sourced. I am notifying everyone of a bold move to replace this entire section. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 4 monarchies? The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived. It seems that most everyone focuses on the four metals as if they designate the kingdoms. However, in really it is the body parts that designate the kingdoms--ie. head, chest and arms, thighs, legs, and feet with toes. The metals and clay are basically descriptors about the designated kingdoms. For instance, Neb and Babylon are identified as the kingdom of the head, but Babylon is famous for it richness in gold. The same goes for the other body parts. So are there really 4 monarchies or 5 kingdoms? Johnjonesjr (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC) That is a great question... but the answer to that question doesn't belong on Daniel 2. This discussion would better serve on the Four monarchies page. Jasonasosa (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I brought it up here because I saw a link to the four monarchies and just got to thinking...... Johnjonesjr (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I propose that the scope of this article be just about Daniel Chapter 2. The mention of a possible "fifth monarchy" on this article does not seem appropriate because it is a millennarian idea, not even an interpretation. It is not directly related to Daniel 2.Jasonasosa (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Appendix (Round 2) Resolved I nominate the Appendix for deletion. User: StAnselm has tagged this section for the purpose of questioning its source. The source is primarily from Le Roy Froom pushing only his POV. Unless someone can edit it to meet NPOV, or provide multiple sources for those tables, I vote its removal. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC) See also Talk:Prophetic beasts of Daniel for User: StAnselm thoughts on this matter. - Jasonasosa (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC) The question of Froom's pov has been raised before. Read this. and read the references section on Le Roy Froom's page. The books were reviewed by a wide assortment of scholars. While his pov is often noted, the work is widely recognized. There is no other work on this topic that compares with it. The charts in the books simply state, in compact form, the positions of the church fathers without analysis. Froom's analysis is found in the text. I have a copy of the books and have compared the tables with the charts in the books. Only some of the info in the charts appears in the tables and is in a different format. All four books can be read on-line at [1] -- Johnjonesjr (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the link on Froom's discussion page. I reconsider the notion for deletion and am now leaning to withdraw. Jasonasosa (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC) It seems to me that some of the flagged concerns have been answered, i.e. reliable source and the copyright problem. As for more than one source, Froom remains the only source which has address all of the writers of Daniel and Revelation from the 1st century to the 19th century. No one else has tackled the huge project. And if some had dealt with some parts of it, have they made similar charts. Can an editor take information from sources and put it into such a chart and not be called for OR? So I think even the last flag is dealt with... Johnjonesjr (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Feet of iron and clay I hate to be a stickler or contrary, but the text does not indicated that the feet of iron and clay is part of the leg kingdom of Iron. It is interpretation and commentary that ties the two together. Johnjonesjr (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Point taken... How do we go about it? Jasonasosa (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC) commentary sections under content Resolved Is it possible to have more than one commentary source under commentary sections? I am certain that there are commentaries that will completely contradict the one being used now simply because of what I talked about before, i.e. believer vs unbeliever scholars. That's why I think that commentary needs to be separated from the content section. Commentary is a form of interpretation. Johnjonesjr (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Yes, commentary is a form of interpretation. What makes this page unique, however, is that it is a discussion of a chapter that has multiple topics. It's not like Prophecy of Seventy Weeks where the topic is focused on a few verses. What we are facing here on this page is similar to this issue WP is facing here > Wikipedia:Bible verses. They are proposing a WP page for each verse due to the wealth of scholarly input that many verses entail. If we break out the commentaries from the content then the table of contents will have two almost identical trees. So I felt it best to keep it all together. The problem I see for example is this: Problematic structure Content (Currently exists) 2.1 King troubled by dreams 2.2 Daniel’s intervention 2.3 Daniel’s doxology 2.4 Daniel approaches the King 2.5 Nebuchadnezzar’s dream 2.6 Daniel's interpretation 2.6.1 Head of gold 2.6.2 Chest and arms of silver 2.6.3 Belly and thighs of bronze 2.6.4 Legs of iron 2.6.5 Feet of iron and clay 2.6.6 Vision of the stone 2.7 Daniel’s promotion Commentaries (Breaking commentary from content...potentially) 3.1 Commentaries on King's dreams 3.2 Commentaries on Daniel’s intervention 3.3 Commentaries on Daniel’s doxology 3.4 Commentaries on Nebuchadnezzar’s dream 3.5 Commentaries on Daniel's interpretation 3.5.1 Commentaries on Head of gold 3.5.2 Commentaries on Chest and arms of silver 3.5.3 Commentaries on Belly and thighs of bronze 3.5.4 Commentaries on Legs of iron 3.5.5 Commentaries on Feet of iron and clay 3.5.6 Commentaries on Vision of the stone 3.6 Commentaries on Daniel’s promotion Frankly... I don't like this idea. What do you propose? - Jasonasosa (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I understand what you mean. but how reader friendly will it be to have several different commentaries attached to each section of the content of the chapter. Not sure how to do this either. This is such a controversial and very polarized topic that it's not going to be easy to make this as neutral as possible. Johnjonesjr (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Hopefully the new layout works. I've isolated the commentaries into their own section under Daniel 2#Narrative analysis. Let me know if this works for you. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Also note, that the commentaries can reflect contrasted arguments, just as Til posted his contrasted argument here > Daniel 2#Redaction criticism. As long as both arguments are presented, the article can maintain some neutrality.Jasonasosa (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Artistic representations of the statue. The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived. I will do the homework for you. Here is a catalogue list of artistic representations of the statue I can find, with the labels. Take a look at each one of these pics if you want to see some great art, each one adds some unique perspectives on the subject. 1. http://www.bibleexplained.com/prophets/daniel/da2-img.jpg Labels: Head - "Babylon"; Chest/arms - "Medo-Persia"; Loins - "Greece"; Legs - "Rome" "Divided Kingdoms"; Stone - "Judgement" "Christ's Kingdom" 2. http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/pictures/RC/4KINGS.jpg Labels: Head - "Babylon"; Chest/arms - "Medo-Persian Empire"; Loins - "Grecian Empire"; Legs - "Roman Empire"; Feet and Toes - "Revised Roman Empire" 3. http://www.lastdaysreporter.com/ASSETS/daniel_imag2.jpg Labels: Head - "Babylonian Empire"; Chest/arms - "Medo-Persian Empire"; Loins - "Grecian Empire"; Legs - "Roman Empire"; Feet and Toes - "Either Ancient Kingdoms or EU Nations" 4. http://www.bible.ca/pre-daniel-2.gif Labels: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome. 5. http://rev14ver12.tripod.com/3AngelsImageLibrary/Daniel2.gif Labels: Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, "Revised Empire", Christ's Kingdom. 6. http://www.davidiansda.org/Daniel%202.jpg Labels: (in Spanish): Babilonia, Medo-Persia, Grecia, Roma, Mundo Presente 7. [2] Labels: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, "Enlarged Roman Empire" / "Ten Kingdoms" 8. http://biblia.com/jesusbible/daniel-statue-10-2.gif Labels: Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, European Union 9. http://www.ktc.net/jcthwychurch/Images/Statue.gif Labels: Babylon, Persia Greece, Rome That's all I have time for now, but I have only scratced the surface, I may come back and expand this list later. 71.253.129.35 16:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC) If there's one thing this list demonstrates, it is that there is a lack of consensus among futurists as to what the feet and toes represent. Are they a reconstituted Roman empire or the EU? Something still future or already present? Perhaps this is why most Christian scholars have so much problems with such interpretations. It's all a guessing game. I've also heard that it could be the UN, the United States, Saddam Hussein, Britain, the World Bank, the IMF, a Muslim empire, the Pope... take your pick :-) Tonicthebrown 08:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC) This article was fine for years until just recently. It strictly avoided getting into a contentious battle over interpretations by, sticking to what the actual text actually says. There are many interpretations of the statue but we still do not have a quote saying specifically that anyone holds the statue vision in Chapter 2 to be any kind of prophecy of the fall of the Jewish Temple in AD 70. This would seem to be a rather forced "interpretation" that has been synthesized from various interpreters' comments on OTHER chapters in Daniel. Til Eulenspiegel 11:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Please allow me to point out that the article, as it stood for "years", asserted a futurist POV about Matthew 24 without any citation or verification: However, some Christians do not accept this interpretation, because Jesus is said in Matthew 24 to have quoted Daniel as a prophet who foretold the "end times" immediately preceding Judgement Day, and not in reference to Epiphanes who had lived nearly 200 years before Jesus. Therefore, their identification of the metals in the statue with empires tends to differ somewhat from the above-mentioned view of the scholars. (20 May 2007 version) All I have done is to counterbalance this POV by adding the preterist POV that Daniel and Jesus were prophesying about events close to their time. Plus I have supplied numerous citations to support this POV. The futurist POV is still uncited Tonicthebrown 08:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC) I'd just like to point out that there is more than just the Futurist and Preterist views to be considered. There is also the Historistical view of the Protestant fathers. The mutually exclusive views, Futurism and Preterism, were devised by two Jesuit Priests as part of the Catholic Counter-reformation. And don't forget Dispensationalism, which is an interesting combination of Futurism and Preterism. Allenroyboy 03:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC) OMG those pictures are horrible! Thank goodness none of them made it to the main page! I laughed my *** off when I saw this one > http://www.davidiansda.org/Daniel%202.jpg Sorry to bring up old dirt, but this was too funny! Jasonasosa (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC) GRAND LAYOUT CHANGE User: Johnjonesjr has expressed concerns about the layout functionality of the Daniel 2 page as discussed here: Talk:Daniel 2#commentary sections under content. I propose a new layout change as follows: New layout proposal (Existing) 1 Literay analysis 1.1 Chiastic effect 1.2 Literary criticism 1.3 Redaction criticism 2 Content (Content only; no commentaries) 2.1 King troubled by dreams 2.2 Daniel’s intervention 2.3 Daniel’s doxology 2.4 Daniel approaches the King 2.5 Nebuchadnezzar’s dream 2.6 Daniel's interpretation <--content only 2.7 Daniel’s promotion (New sections) 3.1 Narrative analysis (Commentary based sections) 3.2.1 Statue of metals image 3.2.2 Head of gold 3.2.3 Chest and arms of silver 3.2.4 Belly and thighs of bronze 3.2.5 Legs of iron 3.2.6 Feet of iron and clay 2.2.7 Vision of the stone (Existing) 3 Interpretations of idol image 3.1 View since Hippolytus 3.2 View since Josephus 3.3 Mormon interpretation 3.4 Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation 3.5 Seventh-day Adventist interpretation 4 Criticism of vision 5 Appendix 6 Notes 7 References Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Remove the stupid section Criticism of vision! Criticism sections are generally discouraged, since the opposing views should preferrably interspersed in the text flow. But there is no way to criticize the vision, the topic is various interpretations of the vision, and the section Criticism of vision is POVvy and original research. Only the references can be used. There are certainly persons opposing a historical-critical interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel, but those historical-critical critics should be treated one by one, referring to their individual views coherently, not concoct a general personal view based on their views. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC) lack of continuity In the section on literary criticism, the article suddenly talks about the "lack of continuity" without describing that lack of continuity. This needs to be explained or removed.... --RoyBurtonson (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Lateral symmetry What is your source for this. have not heard of it before. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Perhaps I'm not using familiar terminology to communicate the concept? From what I've gathered from interviews, not many members of the church are aware of details beyond the basics, in terms of the prophecies. I've discussed this with my pastor. In any case, I'm referring to the fact that there are two of every limb. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC) I see. To be sure, there are two arms, the strong one for Persia, the weaker one for Media. When you get to the bronze torso and thighs, one thigh might represent the Selecuids, the other the Ptolemeys. The two legs are likely pagan and papal Rome. While most SDAs consider the toes to be the surviving nations from the Barbarians, I think that the feet represent two phases of the USA superpower, the free nation and one that will speak like a dragon. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC) You are nearly correct regarding the arms - the arms are usually depicted as folded across the chest, the arm which is folded over the other, is called the superior, the other is called the inferior. The position, not the strength of the arms refer to the relative strengths of Media and Persia. However, that is a bit of a minor point in this discussion. You could be correct regarding the thighs, but not so much on the legs - as with the arms, whatever powers or nations each leg refers to, they must exist concurrently, that is to say at the same time. Papal Rome follows pagan Rome, so that would break the pattern set by the rest of the image. What you claim about the toes is strange, as it conflicts with my sources. From what I've read, the current view is that the toes are the final collection of nations which settled out after a chaotic period of shifting borders and alliances; with no mention of the barbarians, other than the destroyers of the Roman Empires. I can assure you that the feet are definitely not the USA. The USA is part of a totally different prophecy, besides, the USA did not go through such a transition, it spoke like the dragon since its founding in the 1780's. Washington and many of the founding fathers were Freemasons and consequentially, a particular type of humanist, apostate ideology and philosophy dictated the development of the USA as a world power. Even before the founding of the country as an independent state, it provided sanctuary for a variety of such ideologies. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC) The standard SDA interpretation of the toes of the image is that they are parallel with the 10 horns of Dan 7. This has been the interpretation since the protestant reformation through Miller and to the present. The modern nations of Europe are basically descendants from the barbarian tribes of the Roman Era. But the more I have studied Daniel, the less satisfactory this interpretation had become. It is based on the idea that there are 4 kingdoms in the image, that the feet are basically an extension of the legs. There are 4 metals, so it is thought there are 4 kingdoms. However, the metals do not delineate kingdoms in the image. It is body parts that delineate kingdoms. The metals (and clay and iron) are descriptors of the body parts, they give information about the kingdoms, not delineating the kingdoms. For instance, the Head is the kingdom of Babylon and the Gold tells us qualities of the kingdom. The chest and arms are the second kingdom and the Silver tells us qualities of the kingdom, such as the text says, it is of lesser power. So, when you look at the list of body parts, you find that there are 5 (five) listed body parts -- 1. Head, 2. Chest and Arms, 3. Belly and Thighs, 4. Legs, AND 5. Feet and Toes -- so the number of kingdoms is 5 not 4. So that brings up the question, if the Legs are Rome, what Kingdom (singular) is the Feet and Toes? And here is where I am considering a parallel between this vision and Revelation 13. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC) The view that they are the direct "descendants from the barbarian tribes of the Roman Era" is well intentioned but rather short sighted. In a manner of speaking it is correct, but it is not entirely true. For one, how can they refer to both the original barbarian tribes, and their descendants, when most of the originals were destroyed themselves, more than just the three horns from D7? Furthermore, insisting that they refer to the original barbarian tribes, requires one to entirely disregard the feet, bar the toes. I understand your reasoning, but there is one thing that prevents the feet or toes from being the Earth Beast - each successive kingdom in the image occupies some, if not most, of the territory of the preceding kingdom, and the Earth Beast lies out side of the Old world entirely. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Feet of Clay Resolved The phraze "feet of clay" is a common (and cliched) figure of speach. It can mean: - A non-obvious lack of power or unwillingness to act. "The politician said he was committed to fighting pollution, but in the end he had feet of clay." - A weak spot. I only ever heard it used figuratively and usually in a political context. I'm not sure if this belongs on the page (and it would have to be better written). Also, this page doesn't come up when you search for "feet of clay." not on the first page anyway. Response: This expression came from this vision. It does not shed light on the vision, but reflects its meaning. Here is the definition: Feet of clay - fundamental weakness (of a person) Also idol with feet of clay: a person (occasionally thing) much admired but fatally flawed. The reference is to a biblical event during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, a great king of Babylon (604-561 BC) during the Jewish captivity there. He had a dream of a great image: 'This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay' (Daniel, 2: 32-3). Called in to explain this dream-image, Daniel interpreted it as a vision of the declining kingdom: 'And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken' (verse 42). From: http://users.tinyonline.co.uk/gswithenbank/sayingsf.htm not dated --RoyBurtonson (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Recent contest of content by 184.7.91.112 Since you are overturning the status quo, it is your responsibility to justify a removal of content. References have been provided, if you disagree, you must provide legitimate reasons. If you cannot provide legitimate reasons, the article will be restored. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Our edit-warring ISP really needs to come here and talk about it. In the meantime, there seem to be three versions of the table: Current (I think this is the one Plasmic Physics prefers): Head Chest and arms Belly and thighs Legs Feet and toes Rock Neo-Babylonian Empire Achaemenid Empire (AKA Medo-Persia) Macedonian Empire (AKA Greece) Roman Empire (AKA Rome) Successor states God's unending kingdom left to no other people Past Present Future The one I just reverted (I gather this is the one the ISP wants): Chapter Past Present Future Daniel 2 Head Gold (Babylon) Chest & 2 arms Silver (Media-Persia) Belly and thighs Bronze (Greece) 2 Legs Iron (Western Roman Empire & Eastern Roman Empire) 2 Feet Clay & Iron (Frankish & Holy Roman Empires, Ottoman Empire) Toes Clay & Iron (Respective successors) Rock God's unending kingdom left to no other people And at the risk of muddying the water, an older version from 2 June: Head Chest and arms Belly and thighs Legs Feet [Toes] Rock Neo-Babylonian Empire Achaemenid Empire (AKA Medo-Persia) Macedonian Empire (AKA Greece) Western Roman Empire Frankish & Holy Roman Empires Christian successor states God's unending kingdom left to no other people Byzantine Empire (AKA Eastern Roman Empire) Ottoman Empire Islamic successor states Past Present Future I see all three quote the same sources, Smith, U., 1944, Daniel and Revelation, Southern Publishing Association, Nashvill, TN, and Anderson, A., 1975, Pacific PRess Pub. Assoc., Unfolding Daniel's Prophecies, Mountain View, CA, but that isn't much help as there are no page numbers. Final point: this table gets repeated through articles on various chapters of Daniel, wherever the four kingdoms are mentioned, getting longer each time, and I think that's a sound idea. For chapter 7 it looks like this: Chapter Past Present Future Daniel 2 Head Gold (Babylon) Chest & 2 arms Silver (Persia) Belly and thighs Bronze (Greece) 2 Legs Iron (Rome) 2 Feet with toes Clay & Iron Rock God's unending kingdom left to no other people Daniel 7 Winged Lion Lopsided Bear 4 Headed/4 Winged Leopard Iron toothed Beast w/Little Horn Judgment scene Beast w/Horn slain A son of man comes in clouds Given everlasting dominion He gives it to the saints. PiCo (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Please post why adjustments are needed so we can review and discuss them before any revision and come to a consensus, as the Adventist beliefs have not changed since Uriah Smith so IMHO there is no change to make.....Simbagraphix (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC) External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Daniel 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106231244/http://www.schoolofabraham.com:80/daniel.htm to http://www.schoolofabraham.com/daniel.htm When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024). If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Quotes from Froom The following is contained in the sentence "Modern Christian Millennialism": The Historicist interpretation of the visions of Daniel was a major influence for the Protestant Reformation. "The Reformation ... was really born of a twofold discovery--first, the rediscovery of Christ and His salvation; and second, the discovery of the identity of Antichrist and his subversions." "The reformers were unanimous in its acceptance. And it was this interpretation of prophecy that lent emphasis to their reformatory action. It led them to protest against Rome with extraordinary strength and undaunted courage. ... This was the rallying point and the battle cry that made the Reformation unconquerable." The two quotes given (I've looked up the original and read the pages) are misleading as they stand. They do not substantiate the claim that that the interpretation of Daniel in particular was a major impetus for the Reformation. And the second quote is especially liable to be misread. The terms "its acceptance," "this interpretation," and "This" do not refer to anything about the book of Daniel in particular. For now I am going to remove the two quotes and add a 'citation needed tag' to the claim that the historicist interpretation of Daniel was a major influence for the Protestant Reformation.Alephb (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Since no one has commented in six months, I've removed the uncited statement. Alephb (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Unreliable source Sources like Tektonics should be removed on the spot, see WP:SPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC) I hope I was just adding and not subtracting. I found I had to use vpn or it would not load the preview. Very odd. I turn off vpn for edit but this rmtime could not. I believe I am done. I made an addition below and later saw I should the update the intro at the start. Just doing my best to be fair and valid with reference. Thanks for note my links were to disambiguation Pages Jimnelson2025 (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Your sources are outright deplorable, a travesty of verification, a mockery of a reliable neutral encyclopedia. Thus: not done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Why is tectonics wrong?. He is quoting a few books and his tone is very scholarly. He is aghast that frivolous attacks are made. He does respond to main attacks clearly. It makes for a discussion and not dogmatism and saying all, etc. Jimnelson2025 (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC) According to WP:FREE you basically have two options: comply with our rules or be blocked or banned. The choice is yours. I already cited the rule which explicitly disqualifies Tektonics, see WP:SPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Suggestion: you could try citing Archer and see whether that flies with the rest of editors. Anyway, WP:FRINGE views should not be mixed with mainstream scholarly views (Archer was an inerrantist hardliner, thus fringe—he knew that from Ivy Plus to US state universities inerrantism is regarded as the stigma of cranks and kooks). Text cannot be changed at whim, always cite your WP:SOURCES for verification. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC) The Four Kingdoms - Misalignment The four kingdoms given in the section 'The four world kingdoms and the rock' (Babylon, Medes, Persians and Alexandrian Empire/Seleucids/Ptolomies) do not correspond to the four kingdoms given in the referenced article 'Four kingdoms of Daniel' (Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, Roman). I propose to update the section to reflect the kingdoms in the referenced article. Clivemacd (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Information from Wikipedia has to be verified to WP:SOURCES. As longs as the sources are reliable and information is verifiable, contradiction is not a problem. E.g. "John says Socialism is bad. Paul say Socialism is good." Not really a contradiction, since John and Paul are different people. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC) This isn't 'John says... Paul says...'. One article says 'most scholars agree' [on X]. The other article says 'The traditional interpretation.... shared among Jewish and Christian expositors for over two millennia' [is Y]. This is a contradiction. Clivemacd (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC) It's about most mainstream contemporary Bible scholars and about traditional theologians. Different groups, so each has its own vision. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC) The two views are represented as 'The traditional interpretation' and 'the alternative view' in the referenced article. I will replicate this approach in the source article. Clivemacd (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC) It's not by any chance "alternative", it is the mainstream academic view. It is the view of historians, traditional theologians have ignored the fact that the book is vaticinium ex eventu, and therefore could not have predicted its own future. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC) The Alexandrian Empire as the fourth kingdom is the alternative to the traditional view (Rome) - hence traditional/alternative. There is no inconsistency in the alternative view being at the same time the modern mainstream academic consensus.Clivemacd (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Clivemacd, this is in response to the note you left on my personal talk page asking for more detail on my reversion of an edit of yours. I thought it more appropriate to respond here. The original text is this: Most scholars agree that the four world empires symbolised by the statue are Babylon (the head), the Medes (arms and shoulders), Persia (thighs and legs) and Seleucid Syria and Ptolemaic Egypt (the feet).(Towner|1984|p=34-36) Your edit was this: The traditional interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream identifies the four world empires symbolised by the statue as the Babylonian (the head), Medo-Persian (arms and shoulders), Greek (thighs and legs), and Roman (the feet) empires; most modern scholars adopt the view that the four empires are Babylon, the Medes, Persia, and Seleucid Syria and Ptolemaic Egypt.(Towner|1984|p=34-36) This is not an accurate reflection of Towner. The older and non-scholarly idea that kingdoms relate to Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome is dealt with in the section on Christian millennialism.PiCo (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC) I added a separate citation to differentiate the text from the Towner source Clivemacd (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC) The primarily Christian view should not be ambiguously presented as 'the traditional view'. A scholarly view should be presented first as this is a secular encyclopedia. The religious interpretations should also be presented, but they should not be given undue weight, and they need to be properly attributed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC) I intentionally made my edit a compromise of the position above. I see that another editor has given better respect to weight, which I considered doing initially and fully support.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC) It was a good compromise and a shame it wasn't allowed to stand. The most recent edit has departed from the source cited; Miller says nothing about Jewish or Christian expositors.Clivemacd (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Clivemacd, I moved your sentence down to be the lead sentence in the Christian millenialist section, as it seems a natural fit there. It's a good sentence and a good source, and I want to keep it.PiCo (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC) And round we go again. There is absolutely no good reason for this sentence to be ghettoised in a separate section. It is an accurate summary of over a thousand years of analysis of the issue, properly and authoritatively sourced.Clivemacd (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC) As previously stated, the ambiguous attribution of 'the traditional' interpretation is not acceptable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Not acceptable to whom? And for what reasons? Once again, it is properly and authoritatively sourced.Clivemacd (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC) As previously explained, it is not appropriate to misrepresent a particular religious denomination's view as a more general view as it constitutes undue weight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Because the text is properly sourced, it complies with the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability. If you feel it contravenes some other element of Wikipedia policy, you need to state what that policy is and how the text fails to comply with it.Clivemacd (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Not really here to play Wikilawyering. Already pointed out that it's undue weight. Perhaps others can also explain this to you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)