This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's no talk here? Is this new? Are there any other articals related to Daniel chapter 8? Rush4hire 08:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes this is new. Look at the links at the bottom to see some related links Allenroyboy 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is my first edit. Hope I did it right. I added the last sentence in the article, which I thought was an important update regarding the dating of the book of Daniel as some of the Dead Sea Scrolls finally began to be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteveslater ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The illustration merely takes the Bible as it is written (NIV) and physically arranges the texts into parallel according to obvious related words, and phrases. This is exactly what the word paraphrase means. There is nothing new added to the Bible or taken away. This is completely a NPOV. Allenroyboy 17:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The wikipedia Paraphrase page states
"A paraphrase (from the Greek paraphrasis) is a statement or remark explained in other words or another way, so as to simplify or clarify its meaning."
The paraphrase illustration on this page is ONLY a paraphrase, putting the text in another way physically so that the text itself clarifies its own meaning. The paraphrase is NOT an analysis. It is simply a paraphrase. Paraphrasing is a long established and well founded technique on Wikipedia.
And, as was said above, the synthesis is merely a recapitulation of the paraphrased illustration. The only POV is that of the text itself. It does not matter whether someone likes what the text itself says or not. Therefore I am removing false assertion of original research.
If some feel that men's opinions, as expressed in this or that commentary, are needed because they are unable to understand for themselves what the Bible says, they are welcome to add them to the article. --- Christian Skeptic 04:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Mekeggg: You have introduced what appears to be unsourced material wp:verify and original Research WP:OR. Both of which are not allowed on WP. I will simply note with citation needed the parts that need sources, for now. I could just eliminate your material outright, but I want to give you a chance to find the sources you need. The material introduced by ChristianSkeptic is sourced and not Original Research. It is allowable. Criticisms of various positions are allowed and help keep the article NPOV. I will correct the article to reflect these points. Trabucogold ( talk) 13:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It cannot be him because as stated in the chapter, he comes during the end times (at the end) which has not happened yet. The text is describing the Antichrist who comes on to the world scene during the last days tribulation period (too many references to list in the Bible) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.107.150 ( talk) 19:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems that this section is merely a grab bag of arguments with little foundation and easily demonstrated as insubstantial. Once the current arguments there are dealt with, more will be added. It would be better to stick to the scholarship on the issues. -- spin ( talk) 13:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
As predicted more of these arguments have been added and have been responded to and now another has been added. -- spin ( talk) 03:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
This table is mainly apologetics based not on what the text actually says in relation to history and the context in which the text was written, but on what the apologist wants the text to say. This is known in the business not as "exegesis, but "eisegesis" and has nothing to do with evidence or scholarly analysis. It doesn't help us understand anything about Daniel, merely about the apologist.
Hello, without wanting to be impolite, to assume that your view is exegesis and everything else is eisegesis is unfair, to say the least. Please tell us, where in the book do you see evidence of a specific Jerusalem outlook, which you assume so strongly and which is the only way an Antiochus association can be half-substantiated? Throughout the book a Babylonian origin is not only assumed but stated. Also, where do you see, in the book, an 164 BC date? Nowhere. A 6th century date is assumed and stated. So to be fair, I go by the text and you are eisegesing concepts. But critical scholars say... comes the response. Critical scholars assume a 2nd century date because they do not accept the possibility of predictive prophecy. The strongest argument for a 2nd century date is Antiochus and the strongest argument for Antiochus is a second century date with a very localized outlook. Circular reasoning.
I have been using Bible Works and it does not give "winds" as feminine. If you give a few examples of masculine pronouns used with feminine antecedents, I will be happy to remove the above comment. However, you have not answered the second part of the comment, yet you claim in absolute fashion that the pronoun points back to horns. You can believe so, but there is room for disagreement.
Daniel on several occasions refers to the "Medes and the Persians" (5:28; 6:8,12,15) in the same context. He never refers to the Medes alone. According to history Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon, but according to Daniel Darius the Mede ruled it. So there is plenty of scope within Daniel to see the two working together and many commentators accept such a connection.
The comparison "great," 'very great," "exceedingly great," is there but you somehow overlook it on the basis of a presumed (by you) Jerusalem viewpoint. Who is doing injustice to the text? Not me.
In Daniel the concepts of king and kingdom are interrelated. In Daniel 2 Nebuchadnezzar is said to be the gold head, yet the one who follows him is not Nabonidus or Belshazzar, but the empire of Medo-Persia indicating that the king represents the kingdom. Nonetheless, if you feel this is an important point, make your own chart and put it there.
Why then are Greece and Medo-Persia named?
Consensus means nearly all agree. Not all agree here. Evangelical Christians do not accept the 2nd century BC date and there is a good number of scholars who see Rome in the Little Horn. Jesus did not accept it. Most of the Fathers and the early rabbis did not accept it. So, we are in good company. There is no scholarly consensus, there is a majority scholarly view.
It is clear that the person who put up this table won't read the discussion material and puts this sort of coment in the text itself:
Naturally if the person misrepresents the data and the scholarly consensus, the reader cannot "then decide what to accept." -- spin ( talk) 02:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Apologies that I have not made my comment here. I am new to editing wiki and was not aware of protocol. I will not add again any comment there. However, your determination to enforce one view at the expense of others is exasperating. Do you feel threatened by other views? There is a section about the association of the Little Horn with Antiochus and when I tried to enter a comment you tampered with it. When however, one brings in an alternative view, for every comment made you insert a attempted rebuttal; you take my chart and reshape it to say the exact opposite; you delete my comments at will. Again, do you feel threatened by opposing views? Or do you feel you have been divinely appointed to serve as the theological police of this article? Please write your comments in your section and let others express their views in their sections and let the readers judge for themselves. An encyclopedia article by definition must cover a spectrum of views even if to you they seem foolish (to me Antiochus seems foolish).
As for misrepresenting data, I beg to differ. I simply quote Scripture and give my opinion as to whether Antiochus or Rome fit. How is this "misrepresenting"? By contrast, you are the one who has to represent data from your perspective by adding such references not found in the text as, from a Jerusalem perspective, or from a 164 BC perspective. It is obvious that you feel the text itself does not support your conclusions and you have to add your "clarifications" to make the two fit.
Thank you.
The whole irrational attempt at linguistics fails due to lack of understanding of the language: for example, the attempt to make רוחות masculine when it clearly has a feminine ending (as I have indicated above); the terrible argument based on יצא and עלה shows a lack of comprehension of these verbs. I will remove this stuff now as linguistic charlatanry.
And when you post to talk you should sign your comments, the easiest way being to use the tenth button above the edit box. -- spin ( talk) 01:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove anything. Counter-argue if you want but do not remove. What you term "charlatanry" has been noted by a foremost professor of Hebrew and OT.
If you have higher credentials lets hear them; if not, hold your peace.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 11:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, please do not use the phrase "scholarly consensus" again. It is erroneous and I have pointed this out already. Its use is a deliberate attempt to create impressions.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 11:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I have already put this info in the article. Read the noted work produced by a group of excellent scholars and it might enlighten your understanding. The Adventist Church has many top rate scholars who do not uphold the Antiochus parody. So, no consensus. It appears you are a Christian (or am I wrong?) so it is interesting that the words of Jesus carry to weight with you. In my view, they have more weight than all the scholarly opinions.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 13:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The chart on Antiochus is pretty warped, but unlike you I respect people's right to hold alternative views. However, on the section of "Sequence" a blatant fallacy is stated; Antiochus, did not move in the directions stated in the order stated. Substantiate, or I will remove the statement and challenge the truthfulness of the section.
I have already answered the king/kingdom earlier. The long tradition of seeing Rome in Daniel also nullifies your comment on consensus. Don't 19 centuries of interpretation matter? Is it a coincidence that Antiochus gained prominence only after the rise of historical critical approaches to the Bible?-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 13:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, you need to remove the highlighting of my section as dubious.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 12:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems there are some fervent anti Adventists around. They have tried to change a discussion about the Little Horn of Daniel 8 into an anti Adventist tirade. I would suggest we stick to the topic, the association of the Little Horn with Rome is not an Adventist interpretation but goes back centuries. It also seems that some are intolerant of opposite views, they are determined this encyclopedia article supports one view only and everything else is trashed. Chill out friends and allow others not only the right to believe otherwise, but to express their views as well. Thank you.--
Timotheus7 (
talk) 13:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The modernist view (not scholarly view - that is a biased statement) is given substantially more text than other views in this article, as is the wiki article on Daniel 7. The bias here is regrettable, and this article needs to be written to credibly present the various views. The best place to start is to rename the "scholarly view" the "modernist view". There is obviously a lack of balance - and I am neither an Adventist nor a pre-trib futurist. After reading Daniel 7 on wiki, I am so disgusted with the lack of commitment to presenting views in a balanced manner, I question whether it is worth my time to edit. There are a number of scholars who do not separate the Medes and Persians, and who view the objections to a late date of Daniel as largely outdated in light of current research. I have no doubt that modernists, some of whom start with the assumption that Daniel is not a prophet because they reject the supernatural, would be undeterred by any contemporary scholarship in the area of archaelogy, language usage, etc. But there should be some commitment to balance - which is sadly lacking from this and at least one other article. I apologize if anyone is offended by my statements, but modernism should not be the primary force of an article that gives an overview. -- Baxterguy ( talk) 17:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Go for it. Let's see it improved. Christian Skeptic ( talk) 15:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Baxterguy, you are so right. I changed two items. (1) Daniel 11 as "proof" (I changed this to "evidence"). What kind of "proof" is Daniel 11? Has it been tested in a laboratory? When it relates to matters of interpretation, "evidence" is a more correct word than "proof". (2) In the section "Arguments against Antiochus Epiphanes and scholarly objections" I removed the word "scholarly". It presupposes that those who oppose the Antiochus identification are not "scholarly". What bigotry. Encyclopedia articles should treat fairly all views without derogatory or loaded terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotheus7 ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any serious editor here responsible for what goes on???? Someone has been adding "red herring" or "bogus" next to everything I wrote and he is allowed to get away with it. Is this an encyclopedia article or a mickey mouse forum?? Also, this article is about Daniel 8 not about the Adventist church. As noted in the relevant section many Jewish and Christian scholars of different persuasions and great note over many centuries (including Jesus!!!) agreed with the identification of the Little Horn with Rome. Why are Adventists singled out for hateful attacks? If there is an official wiki editor for this article act, or pass the mantle to someone else.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 07:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Why this article gives so much space to a minority religious interpretation as the Seventh Day Adventist position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.203.22.165 ( talk) 15:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
im having trouble wrapping my brain around this article. Is it talking about a chapter of the old testament, describing differences in translation, and historic interpretations, including the modern, academic one? or is it straight Christian doctrine, which assumes that the Bible is the word of god? i think a newcomer to this subject would get the wrong idea about what is found in wikipedia. i checked the article on Daniel here, and it seemed to be a good example of how to write an article on a bible chapter or passage. the charts here seem to give no context as to who created them, and what church the person may be connected to. im not going to touch anything here, as i dont feel safe that people are going to assume good faith on my part. I wish someone with some knowledge of the bible could look at this article, and then take a step back and try to see it through the eyes of a nonbeliever, a jew, a muslim, a scientist, a linguist, a layperson, a person with no contact with this tradition, and (my reference point), an intelligent alien species trying to learn about our world. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 20:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This needs a major rewrite to get rid of tables. Very non-wiki.... 8teenfourT4 ( talk) 23:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the following section:
- Synthesis of the Dream and given Interpretation
- Image: Dan8parallel.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Parallel paraphrase of Dream and Interpretation. The text is arranged to read top-to-bottom, and parallel left-to-right. (Words in bold font indicate parallel phrases. Colors demarcate the different kingdoms.
- In the latter part of the chapter, Daniel is given the interpretation of the dream. This is a synthesis of the vision with the given interpretation.
- The ram had two horns, the first representing Media and the one that came up second, the one that grew longer, representing Persia. It was to charge toward the west, then north, then south. It would do whatever it pleased and become great.
- Representing Greece (more accurately, Macedonia), the Goat comes from the west, crossing the earth without touching the ground. Greece charges the ram in great rage. It shatters the horns (i.e. kings—see below) of Media and Persia and knocks the ram to the ground and tramples it.
- But at the height of Greece's power, its great horn—i.e. King ["The large horn between his eyes is the first king"]--is broken off and four other kings grow up toward the four winds.
- Then an unidentified king, a stern-faced master of intrigue, comes on the scene. He starts small but will become very strong, yet not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will cause deceit to prosper. When they feel secure, he will destroy many.
- He will grow to the south, then east and toward the "beautiful land" and destroy the mighty men and the holy people. He will consider himself superior to the "hosts of heaven' and claim to be as great as and take his stand against the "Prince of the princes."
- He steals the 'daily sacrifice' and denigrates the "sanctuary" of the "Prince of hosts" The saints and sacrifice are put under his tyranny and truth is thrown down.
- Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.
- Someone asks about how long that part of the vision that deals with the daily sacrifice, the rebellion, the surrender of the sanctuary and the host would last. It was to last 2300 "evening and mornings."
- After that, the sanctuary, which had been debased and soiled, would be cleansed and reconsecrated.
This material needs to be well-sourced. It cannot remain in the article, uncited as it is. 207.181.235.214 ( talk) 03:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- "The ram had two horns, the first representing Media and the one that came up second, the one that grew longer, representing Persia. It was to charge toward the west, then north, then south. It would do whatever it pleased and become great."
- The ram, Media-Persia, had two horns, one longer than the other. It was to charge toward the west, then north, then south. It would do whatever it pleased and become great.
I keep removing unsourced material, and it's growing tedious. If you have a citation for any interpretive comments, please feel free to add them. If you don't know how to cite material, come to the talk page and someone will lend a hand in showing you how to do so. Just putting in unreferenced interpretation will be removed every time. - 207.181.235.214 ( talk) 15:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Goofed on colors. Yellow = Gold head Lt Gray = Silver Chest Brown = Bronze Chest Red = Iron (rusted) legs Tan = clay and iron feet Blue = Gods Kingdom. (the 10 Commandments were carved on bluestone tablets) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8teenfourT4 ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The following section, added by Art Carlson:
- The interpretation of Gabriel (inserted before "Principles of interpretation")
- In the second half of the book, Gabriel explained the meaning of the vision to Daniel. Gabriel first said the vision pertained to the time of the end, and then interprets the details.
- The goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and its horn is the first king. (v.21) The broken horn and the four that arise in its place represent four lesser kingdoms which will arise from his nation. (v.22)
- In the latter period of their rule, a king will arise. (v. 23) He will be insolent, powerful, destructive, and prosperous. He will destroy the holy people. (v.24) He will even oppose the "Prince of princes", but he will ultimately be broken, although without human agency. (v.25)
- Gabriel affirms the truth of the vision of the evenings and mornings, but admonishes Daniel to keep the vision secret.
- After having this vision, Daniel reports being exhausted and sick for days.
Again, we aren't adding who is providing the interpretations. I am not speaking of the angel explaining it; I am referring to the source material providing the translation. As I have pointed out at least a few times before, we need that. - 207.181.235.214 ( talk) 21:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Does this disagreement all come down to misunderstanding what is meant by the word cite?
In general one would have a citation. This does not mean that you need to say "according to the King James bible..." or anything like that. It just means that you need a little number created using the <ref> tag, that says where you got the information from.
You could argue that this has already been done by providing the verse in brackets. However, I think that it would be preferable to format it in a similar way to some of the later citations. These use biblegateway.com and hence allow anyone to check what the different translations of the bible say. The first sentence of the second paragraph of that section would be something like this.
The goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and its horn is the first king. [1]
I hope you find that helpful.
Yaris678 ( talk) 12:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the purpose of this article is to first report what the text actually says and then discuss the assorted positions taken about the text and what it means to various groups. There should a place for criticism of the text and a place for those who choose to believe. 8teenfourT4 ( talk) 21:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the templates don't make much sense and the real issue is lack of secondary sources for the article as a whole (there are some, but more would be good). I have put a question on Template talk:Religious text primary, to see if I have missed anything. Yaris678 ( talk) 16:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The article talks about the 70 day prophecy as relating to the 15th year of the reign of the emperor Tiberius, which is stated therefore to be 27 AD. Tiberius became emperor in 14 AD, which fact is very clearly documented in multiple contemporary sources and not, I believe, challenged by either historians or achaeologists. According to convention his 15th year, therefore, could be seen as either 28 AD or 29 AD, but not 27 AD. How is this explained? -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 15:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
"2300 mornings and evenings, i.e. 1150 days"
Doesn't 2300 mornings and evenings mean 2300 days? What is the reasoning that the "and" doesn't imply 2300 mornings and 2300 evenings? = 2300 days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.153.197 ( talk) 09:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
In the current version, the line
is followed by a footnote reading
This doesn't make much sense. Apparently the pronoun is masculine, but if "[t]he masculine pronoun is often used for a feminine antecedent", or if "winds" is usually feminine but sometimes masculine, then there is no way to decide the question on the basis of grammatical gender. (Am I correct that "horns" is always masculine?) And what is the thing with the verbs? Has someone suggested an argument that use the verbs, and who says the argument is not valid? If this argument cannot be stated more clearly - substantiated with reliable sources - I would suggest removing the footnote. -- Art Carlson ( talk) 11:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The 2300 day prophecy begins exactly where the vision of Daniel 8 begins: The battle at the river Granicus, where Alexander the Great defeats Darius III in 334 BC. This battle happened after Passover, in May of 334. Counting forward from the first Passover in 333 BC you come to the 2300th Passover in April of 1967. Two months later Israel captures Jerusalem in the Six day War.
There are exactly 2300 Passovers between the defeat of Darius III in 334 BC, and the 6 Day War in 1967.
April 21 Greece is taken over by a military dictatorship led by George Papadopoulos; ex-Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou political prisoner to December 25.
And God wrote it in the earth
Behold the bear, ram, and goat of the book of Daniel - MichaelTheArch
The first three subsections are summaries of the biblical text, however the subsection the little horn is an interpretation of the text. This subsection needs to be moved down to the interpretations section below as a scholarly interpretation or some such title. A summary of the text (like the others) needs to be put in its place. Johnjonesjr ( talk) 17:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Telpardec, I see you abject to my large revisions to the article. Here's a bit of explanation:
Anyway, I'll go through the article and do the edits one by one, to give you a chance to raise objections should you wish. PiCo ( talk) 22:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The "Interpretation" section somewhat dogmatically states that 'Daniel 8:13's "holy ones of the Most High" clearly means angels, although sometimes in the Hebrew Bible it seems to refer to the Israelites.' My understanding is that most theologians interpret these stars as Israelites. Antiochus Epiphanes certainly did kill many Israelites, but it's less certain that angels were "cast down to the ground and trampled upon." I don't know what the correct interpretation is, but the article should acknowledge that the interpretation is disputed. Sadiemonster ( talk) 03:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daniel 8. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daniel 8. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The King of Greece who conquers Persia is Alexander, yet the article allows only a small section for this viewpoint. There is only ONE Greek King that conquered Persia.
Various parts of Daniel give more details.
The obvious first - He is Greek. Also very very obvious - He conquers Persia. His horn will be broken off - meaning he will not die of old age. His kingdom will be split into 4 parts and not go to his descendants - I hope no explanation is needed.
The only Greek king to conquer Persia was Alexander. He did in fact die young and his kingdom was split into 4 parts, split among his generals and not his descendants.
Also lots of stuff mixed in from other prophecies. The "little horn" can be anyone up to and including Mohammad, reflecting the Muslim conquests from the south (Arabia) towards first Egypt and the area around Jerusalem before going north into modern day Syria and Turkey. The Book of Revelations also lists the little horn as a future event, so per the New Testament it does not refer to Antiochus.
The 2,300 day period refers to a time when the temple area will be unclean. In Daniel a day refers to a year, so this is actually a period of 2,300 YEARS. The period would start from the time the temple area was first desecrated (by Antiochus around 168 BC but possibly by other Greek kings even earlier) to the time it is cleaned. With the Dome on the Rock still on the temple mount, that area is still considered unclean by Jews. 71.174.128.111 ( talk) 16:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's no talk here? Is this new? Are there any other articals related to Daniel chapter 8? Rush4hire 08:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes this is new. Look at the links at the bottom to see some related links Allenroyboy 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is my first edit. Hope I did it right. I added the last sentence in the article, which I thought was an important update regarding the dating of the book of Daniel as some of the Dead Sea Scrolls finally began to be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteveslater ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The illustration merely takes the Bible as it is written (NIV) and physically arranges the texts into parallel according to obvious related words, and phrases. This is exactly what the word paraphrase means. There is nothing new added to the Bible or taken away. This is completely a NPOV. Allenroyboy 17:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The wikipedia Paraphrase page states
"A paraphrase (from the Greek paraphrasis) is a statement or remark explained in other words or another way, so as to simplify or clarify its meaning."
The paraphrase illustration on this page is ONLY a paraphrase, putting the text in another way physically so that the text itself clarifies its own meaning. The paraphrase is NOT an analysis. It is simply a paraphrase. Paraphrasing is a long established and well founded technique on Wikipedia.
And, as was said above, the synthesis is merely a recapitulation of the paraphrased illustration. The only POV is that of the text itself. It does not matter whether someone likes what the text itself says or not. Therefore I am removing false assertion of original research.
If some feel that men's opinions, as expressed in this or that commentary, are needed because they are unable to understand for themselves what the Bible says, they are welcome to add them to the article. --- Christian Skeptic 04:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Mekeggg: You have introduced what appears to be unsourced material wp:verify and original Research WP:OR. Both of which are not allowed on WP. I will simply note with citation needed the parts that need sources, for now. I could just eliminate your material outright, but I want to give you a chance to find the sources you need. The material introduced by ChristianSkeptic is sourced and not Original Research. It is allowable. Criticisms of various positions are allowed and help keep the article NPOV. I will correct the article to reflect these points. Trabucogold ( talk) 13:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It cannot be him because as stated in the chapter, he comes during the end times (at the end) which has not happened yet. The text is describing the Antichrist who comes on to the world scene during the last days tribulation period (too many references to list in the Bible) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.107.150 ( talk) 19:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems that this section is merely a grab bag of arguments with little foundation and easily demonstrated as insubstantial. Once the current arguments there are dealt with, more will be added. It would be better to stick to the scholarship on the issues. -- spin ( talk) 13:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
As predicted more of these arguments have been added and have been responded to and now another has been added. -- spin ( talk) 03:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
This table is mainly apologetics based not on what the text actually says in relation to history and the context in which the text was written, but on what the apologist wants the text to say. This is known in the business not as "exegesis, but "eisegesis" and has nothing to do with evidence or scholarly analysis. It doesn't help us understand anything about Daniel, merely about the apologist.
Hello, without wanting to be impolite, to assume that your view is exegesis and everything else is eisegesis is unfair, to say the least. Please tell us, where in the book do you see evidence of a specific Jerusalem outlook, which you assume so strongly and which is the only way an Antiochus association can be half-substantiated? Throughout the book a Babylonian origin is not only assumed but stated. Also, where do you see, in the book, an 164 BC date? Nowhere. A 6th century date is assumed and stated. So to be fair, I go by the text and you are eisegesing concepts. But critical scholars say... comes the response. Critical scholars assume a 2nd century date because they do not accept the possibility of predictive prophecy. The strongest argument for a 2nd century date is Antiochus and the strongest argument for Antiochus is a second century date with a very localized outlook. Circular reasoning.
I have been using Bible Works and it does not give "winds" as feminine. If you give a few examples of masculine pronouns used with feminine antecedents, I will be happy to remove the above comment. However, you have not answered the second part of the comment, yet you claim in absolute fashion that the pronoun points back to horns. You can believe so, but there is room for disagreement.
Daniel on several occasions refers to the "Medes and the Persians" (5:28; 6:8,12,15) in the same context. He never refers to the Medes alone. According to history Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon, but according to Daniel Darius the Mede ruled it. So there is plenty of scope within Daniel to see the two working together and many commentators accept such a connection.
The comparison "great," 'very great," "exceedingly great," is there but you somehow overlook it on the basis of a presumed (by you) Jerusalem viewpoint. Who is doing injustice to the text? Not me.
In Daniel the concepts of king and kingdom are interrelated. In Daniel 2 Nebuchadnezzar is said to be the gold head, yet the one who follows him is not Nabonidus or Belshazzar, but the empire of Medo-Persia indicating that the king represents the kingdom. Nonetheless, if you feel this is an important point, make your own chart and put it there.
Why then are Greece and Medo-Persia named?
Consensus means nearly all agree. Not all agree here. Evangelical Christians do not accept the 2nd century BC date and there is a good number of scholars who see Rome in the Little Horn. Jesus did not accept it. Most of the Fathers and the early rabbis did not accept it. So, we are in good company. There is no scholarly consensus, there is a majority scholarly view.
It is clear that the person who put up this table won't read the discussion material and puts this sort of coment in the text itself:
Naturally if the person misrepresents the data and the scholarly consensus, the reader cannot "then decide what to accept." -- spin ( talk) 02:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Apologies that I have not made my comment here. I am new to editing wiki and was not aware of protocol. I will not add again any comment there. However, your determination to enforce one view at the expense of others is exasperating. Do you feel threatened by other views? There is a section about the association of the Little Horn with Antiochus and when I tried to enter a comment you tampered with it. When however, one brings in an alternative view, for every comment made you insert a attempted rebuttal; you take my chart and reshape it to say the exact opposite; you delete my comments at will. Again, do you feel threatened by opposing views? Or do you feel you have been divinely appointed to serve as the theological police of this article? Please write your comments in your section and let others express their views in their sections and let the readers judge for themselves. An encyclopedia article by definition must cover a spectrum of views even if to you they seem foolish (to me Antiochus seems foolish).
As for misrepresenting data, I beg to differ. I simply quote Scripture and give my opinion as to whether Antiochus or Rome fit. How is this "misrepresenting"? By contrast, you are the one who has to represent data from your perspective by adding such references not found in the text as, from a Jerusalem perspective, or from a 164 BC perspective. It is obvious that you feel the text itself does not support your conclusions and you have to add your "clarifications" to make the two fit.
Thank you.
The whole irrational attempt at linguistics fails due to lack of understanding of the language: for example, the attempt to make רוחות masculine when it clearly has a feminine ending (as I have indicated above); the terrible argument based on יצא and עלה shows a lack of comprehension of these verbs. I will remove this stuff now as linguistic charlatanry.
And when you post to talk you should sign your comments, the easiest way being to use the tenth button above the edit box. -- spin ( talk) 01:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove anything. Counter-argue if you want but do not remove. What you term "charlatanry" has been noted by a foremost professor of Hebrew and OT.
If you have higher credentials lets hear them; if not, hold your peace.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 11:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, please do not use the phrase "scholarly consensus" again. It is erroneous and I have pointed this out already. Its use is a deliberate attempt to create impressions.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 11:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I have already put this info in the article. Read the noted work produced by a group of excellent scholars and it might enlighten your understanding. The Adventist Church has many top rate scholars who do not uphold the Antiochus parody. So, no consensus. It appears you are a Christian (or am I wrong?) so it is interesting that the words of Jesus carry to weight with you. In my view, they have more weight than all the scholarly opinions.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 13:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The chart on Antiochus is pretty warped, but unlike you I respect people's right to hold alternative views. However, on the section of "Sequence" a blatant fallacy is stated; Antiochus, did not move in the directions stated in the order stated. Substantiate, or I will remove the statement and challenge the truthfulness of the section.
I have already answered the king/kingdom earlier. The long tradition of seeing Rome in Daniel also nullifies your comment on consensus. Don't 19 centuries of interpretation matter? Is it a coincidence that Antiochus gained prominence only after the rise of historical critical approaches to the Bible?-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 13:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, you need to remove the highlighting of my section as dubious.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 12:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems there are some fervent anti Adventists around. They have tried to change a discussion about the Little Horn of Daniel 8 into an anti Adventist tirade. I would suggest we stick to the topic, the association of the Little Horn with Rome is not an Adventist interpretation but goes back centuries. It also seems that some are intolerant of opposite views, they are determined this encyclopedia article supports one view only and everything else is trashed. Chill out friends and allow others not only the right to believe otherwise, but to express their views as well. Thank you.--
Timotheus7 (
talk) 13:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The modernist view (not scholarly view - that is a biased statement) is given substantially more text than other views in this article, as is the wiki article on Daniel 7. The bias here is regrettable, and this article needs to be written to credibly present the various views. The best place to start is to rename the "scholarly view" the "modernist view". There is obviously a lack of balance - and I am neither an Adventist nor a pre-trib futurist. After reading Daniel 7 on wiki, I am so disgusted with the lack of commitment to presenting views in a balanced manner, I question whether it is worth my time to edit. There are a number of scholars who do not separate the Medes and Persians, and who view the objections to a late date of Daniel as largely outdated in light of current research. I have no doubt that modernists, some of whom start with the assumption that Daniel is not a prophet because they reject the supernatural, would be undeterred by any contemporary scholarship in the area of archaelogy, language usage, etc. But there should be some commitment to balance - which is sadly lacking from this and at least one other article. I apologize if anyone is offended by my statements, but modernism should not be the primary force of an article that gives an overview. -- Baxterguy ( talk) 17:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Go for it. Let's see it improved. Christian Skeptic ( talk) 15:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Baxterguy, you are so right. I changed two items. (1) Daniel 11 as "proof" (I changed this to "evidence"). What kind of "proof" is Daniel 11? Has it been tested in a laboratory? When it relates to matters of interpretation, "evidence" is a more correct word than "proof". (2) In the section "Arguments against Antiochus Epiphanes and scholarly objections" I removed the word "scholarly". It presupposes that those who oppose the Antiochus identification are not "scholarly". What bigotry. Encyclopedia articles should treat fairly all views without derogatory or loaded terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotheus7 ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any serious editor here responsible for what goes on???? Someone has been adding "red herring" or "bogus" next to everything I wrote and he is allowed to get away with it. Is this an encyclopedia article or a mickey mouse forum?? Also, this article is about Daniel 8 not about the Adventist church. As noted in the relevant section many Jewish and Christian scholars of different persuasions and great note over many centuries (including Jesus!!!) agreed with the identification of the Little Horn with Rome. Why are Adventists singled out for hateful attacks? If there is an official wiki editor for this article act, or pass the mantle to someone else.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 07:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Why this article gives so much space to a minority religious interpretation as the Seventh Day Adventist position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.203.22.165 ( talk) 15:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
im having trouble wrapping my brain around this article. Is it talking about a chapter of the old testament, describing differences in translation, and historic interpretations, including the modern, academic one? or is it straight Christian doctrine, which assumes that the Bible is the word of god? i think a newcomer to this subject would get the wrong idea about what is found in wikipedia. i checked the article on Daniel here, and it seemed to be a good example of how to write an article on a bible chapter or passage. the charts here seem to give no context as to who created them, and what church the person may be connected to. im not going to touch anything here, as i dont feel safe that people are going to assume good faith on my part. I wish someone with some knowledge of the bible could look at this article, and then take a step back and try to see it through the eyes of a nonbeliever, a jew, a muslim, a scientist, a linguist, a layperson, a person with no contact with this tradition, and (my reference point), an intelligent alien species trying to learn about our world. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 20:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This needs a major rewrite to get rid of tables. Very non-wiki.... 8teenfourT4 ( talk) 23:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the following section:
- Synthesis of the Dream and given Interpretation
- Image: Dan8parallel.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Parallel paraphrase of Dream and Interpretation. The text is arranged to read top-to-bottom, and parallel left-to-right. (Words in bold font indicate parallel phrases. Colors demarcate the different kingdoms.
- In the latter part of the chapter, Daniel is given the interpretation of the dream. This is a synthesis of the vision with the given interpretation.
- The ram had two horns, the first representing Media and the one that came up second, the one that grew longer, representing Persia. It was to charge toward the west, then north, then south. It would do whatever it pleased and become great.
- Representing Greece (more accurately, Macedonia), the Goat comes from the west, crossing the earth without touching the ground. Greece charges the ram in great rage. It shatters the horns (i.e. kings—see below) of Media and Persia and knocks the ram to the ground and tramples it.
- But at the height of Greece's power, its great horn—i.e. King ["The large horn between his eyes is the first king"]--is broken off and four other kings grow up toward the four winds.
- Then an unidentified king, a stern-faced master of intrigue, comes on the scene. He starts small but will become very strong, yet not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will cause deceit to prosper. When they feel secure, he will destroy many.
- He will grow to the south, then east and toward the "beautiful land" and destroy the mighty men and the holy people. He will consider himself superior to the "hosts of heaven' and claim to be as great as and take his stand against the "Prince of the princes."
- He steals the 'daily sacrifice' and denigrates the "sanctuary" of the "Prince of hosts" The saints and sacrifice are put under his tyranny and truth is thrown down.
- Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.
- Someone asks about how long that part of the vision that deals with the daily sacrifice, the rebellion, the surrender of the sanctuary and the host would last. It was to last 2300 "evening and mornings."
- After that, the sanctuary, which had been debased and soiled, would be cleansed and reconsecrated.
This material needs to be well-sourced. It cannot remain in the article, uncited as it is. 207.181.235.214 ( talk) 03:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- "The ram had two horns, the first representing Media and the one that came up second, the one that grew longer, representing Persia. It was to charge toward the west, then north, then south. It would do whatever it pleased and become great."
- The ram, Media-Persia, had two horns, one longer than the other. It was to charge toward the west, then north, then south. It would do whatever it pleased and become great.
I keep removing unsourced material, and it's growing tedious. If you have a citation for any interpretive comments, please feel free to add them. If you don't know how to cite material, come to the talk page and someone will lend a hand in showing you how to do so. Just putting in unreferenced interpretation will be removed every time. - 207.181.235.214 ( talk) 15:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Goofed on colors. Yellow = Gold head Lt Gray = Silver Chest Brown = Bronze Chest Red = Iron (rusted) legs Tan = clay and iron feet Blue = Gods Kingdom. (the 10 Commandments were carved on bluestone tablets) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8teenfourT4 ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The following section, added by Art Carlson:
- The interpretation of Gabriel (inserted before "Principles of interpretation")
- In the second half of the book, Gabriel explained the meaning of the vision to Daniel. Gabriel first said the vision pertained to the time of the end, and then interprets the details.
- The goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and its horn is the first king. (v.21) The broken horn and the four that arise in its place represent four lesser kingdoms which will arise from his nation. (v.22)
- In the latter period of their rule, a king will arise. (v. 23) He will be insolent, powerful, destructive, and prosperous. He will destroy the holy people. (v.24) He will even oppose the "Prince of princes", but he will ultimately be broken, although without human agency. (v.25)
- Gabriel affirms the truth of the vision of the evenings and mornings, but admonishes Daniel to keep the vision secret.
- After having this vision, Daniel reports being exhausted and sick for days.
Again, we aren't adding who is providing the interpretations. I am not speaking of the angel explaining it; I am referring to the source material providing the translation. As I have pointed out at least a few times before, we need that. - 207.181.235.214 ( talk) 21:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Does this disagreement all come down to misunderstanding what is meant by the word cite?
In general one would have a citation. This does not mean that you need to say "according to the King James bible..." or anything like that. It just means that you need a little number created using the <ref> tag, that says where you got the information from.
You could argue that this has already been done by providing the verse in brackets. However, I think that it would be preferable to format it in a similar way to some of the later citations. These use biblegateway.com and hence allow anyone to check what the different translations of the bible say. The first sentence of the second paragraph of that section would be something like this.
The goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and its horn is the first king. [1]
I hope you find that helpful.
Yaris678 ( talk) 12:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the purpose of this article is to first report what the text actually says and then discuss the assorted positions taken about the text and what it means to various groups. There should a place for criticism of the text and a place for those who choose to believe. 8teenfourT4 ( talk) 21:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the templates don't make much sense and the real issue is lack of secondary sources for the article as a whole (there are some, but more would be good). I have put a question on Template talk:Religious text primary, to see if I have missed anything. Yaris678 ( talk) 16:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The article talks about the 70 day prophecy as relating to the 15th year of the reign of the emperor Tiberius, which is stated therefore to be 27 AD. Tiberius became emperor in 14 AD, which fact is very clearly documented in multiple contemporary sources and not, I believe, challenged by either historians or achaeologists. According to convention his 15th year, therefore, could be seen as either 28 AD or 29 AD, but not 27 AD. How is this explained? -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 15:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
"2300 mornings and evenings, i.e. 1150 days"
Doesn't 2300 mornings and evenings mean 2300 days? What is the reasoning that the "and" doesn't imply 2300 mornings and 2300 evenings? = 2300 days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.153.197 ( talk) 09:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
In the current version, the line
is followed by a footnote reading
This doesn't make much sense. Apparently the pronoun is masculine, but if "[t]he masculine pronoun is often used for a feminine antecedent", or if "winds" is usually feminine but sometimes masculine, then there is no way to decide the question on the basis of grammatical gender. (Am I correct that "horns" is always masculine?) And what is the thing with the verbs? Has someone suggested an argument that use the verbs, and who says the argument is not valid? If this argument cannot be stated more clearly - substantiated with reliable sources - I would suggest removing the footnote. -- Art Carlson ( talk) 11:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The 2300 day prophecy begins exactly where the vision of Daniel 8 begins: The battle at the river Granicus, where Alexander the Great defeats Darius III in 334 BC. This battle happened after Passover, in May of 334. Counting forward from the first Passover in 333 BC you come to the 2300th Passover in April of 1967. Two months later Israel captures Jerusalem in the Six day War.
There are exactly 2300 Passovers between the defeat of Darius III in 334 BC, and the 6 Day War in 1967.
April 21 Greece is taken over by a military dictatorship led by George Papadopoulos; ex-Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou political prisoner to December 25.
And God wrote it in the earth
Behold the bear, ram, and goat of the book of Daniel - MichaelTheArch
The first three subsections are summaries of the biblical text, however the subsection the little horn is an interpretation of the text. This subsection needs to be moved down to the interpretations section below as a scholarly interpretation or some such title. A summary of the text (like the others) needs to be put in its place. Johnjonesjr ( talk) 17:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Telpardec, I see you abject to my large revisions to the article. Here's a bit of explanation:
Anyway, I'll go through the article and do the edits one by one, to give you a chance to raise objections should you wish. PiCo ( talk) 22:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The "Interpretation" section somewhat dogmatically states that 'Daniel 8:13's "holy ones of the Most High" clearly means angels, although sometimes in the Hebrew Bible it seems to refer to the Israelites.' My understanding is that most theologians interpret these stars as Israelites. Antiochus Epiphanes certainly did kill many Israelites, but it's less certain that angels were "cast down to the ground and trampled upon." I don't know what the correct interpretation is, but the article should acknowledge that the interpretation is disputed. Sadiemonster ( talk) 03:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daniel 8. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daniel 8. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The King of Greece who conquers Persia is Alexander, yet the article allows only a small section for this viewpoint. There is only ONE Greek King that conquered Persia.
Various parts of Daniel give more details.
The obvious first - He is Greek. Also very very obvious - He conquers Persia. His horn will be broken off - meaning he will not die of old age. His kingdom will be split into 4 parts and not go to his descendants - I hope no explanation is needed.
The only Greek king to conquer Persia was Alexander. He did in fact die young and his kingdom was split into 4 parts, split among his generals and not his descendants.
Also lots of stuff mixed in from other prophecies. The "little horn" can be anyone up to and including Mohammad, reflecting the Muslim conquests from the south (Arabia) towards first Egypt and the area around Jerusalem before going north into modern day Syria and Turkey. The Book of Revelations also lists the little horn as a future event, so per the New Testament it does not refer to Antiochus.
The 2,300 day period refers to a time when the temple area will be unclean. In Daniel a day refers to a year, so this is actually a period of 2,300 YEARS. The period would start from the time the temple area was first desecrated (by Antiochus around 168 BC but possibly by other Greek kings even earlier) to the time it is cleaned. With the Dome on the Rock still on the temple mount, that area is still considered unclean by Jews. 71.174.128.111 ( talk) 16:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)