Daniel 2300 days and nights, 1290 days, and 1335 days

[Kris]

Does anyone have a good explanation as to what these days mean in support of Daniel relating to the times of the Maccabees? I have read that the SDA church has some odd interpretations--- but I am looking for a more historical interpretation.

[Mental flatliner]

Does anyone have a good explanation as to what these days mean in support of Daniel relating to the times of the Maccabees? I have read that the SDA church has some odd interpretations--- but I am looking for a more historical interpretation.

Prophecy is expressive in nature and always problematic when interpreting.

It would probably be a mistake to try to read the Maccabbean events into Daniel's text. That would be nothing more than forming a conclusion by molding the evidence to accomodate it.

Your best bet is always to begin with Daniel and read it without alteration.

[spin]

Does anyone have a good explanation as to what these days mean in support of Daniel relating to the times of the Maccabees? I have read that the SDA church has some odd interpretations--- but I am looking for a more historical interpretation.

Prophecy is expressive in nature and always problematic when interpreting.

It would probably be a mistake to try to read the Maccabbean events into Daniel's text. That would be nothing more than forming a conclusion by molding the evidence to accomodate it.

Your best bet is always to begin with Daniel and read it without alteration.

It would probably be a mistake not to see the Hellenistic crisis as the center of Daniel 7-12.

---

Incidentally 2300 days and nights are 1150 full days, so there is a progression from 1150 to 1290 to 1335 days, quite an elastic prediction from the time of the start of the Hellenistic crisis to the rededication of the temple.

[Mental flatliner]

It would probably be a mistake not to see the Hellenistic crisis as the center of Daniel 7-12.

Historically, there's no connection. Several centuries separate Daniel from the events, and the tenor in Israel was totally transformed during the Seleucid period.

Personally, I don't believe any fact or reason can prevent you from making the Bible say what you want, so don't let this stop you, either.

[spin]

It would probably be a mistake not to see the Hellenistic crisis as the center of Daniel 7-12.

Historically, there's no connection. Several centuries separate Daniel from the events, and the tenor in Israel was totally transformed during the Seleucid period.

Personally, I don't believe any fact or reason can prevent you from making the Bible say what you want, so don't let this stop you, either.

You have the penchant for presenting gullibility as the only guide for biblical content. Historical context is a far more convincing pointer to understanding. We know that the historical trappings of the book are historically wrong and there are enough scholarly commentaries to illustrate the fact, all indicating that Daniel's history doesn't reflect a writing during the period it is nominally set. Its use of Greek musical instruments point to a time when those instruments were common enough for the writer to refer to. The blow-by-blow crypto-history of the kings of the north and south in chapter 11 is rather accurate for the conflicts between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. With the loss of the Ptolemies and the ascendency of Antiochus III the text focuses more on the period leading up to and including most of the Hellenistic crisis, ultimately going off track when that history had not been completed. This last fact dates the text to immediately prior to the rededication of the temple, whose imminence can be seen in the changing prediction dates.

[Mental flatliner]

It would probably be a mistake not to see the Hellenistic crisis as the center of Daniel 7-12.

Historically, there's no connection. Several centuries separate Daniel from the events, and the tenor in Israel was totally transformed during the Seleucid period.

Personally, I don't believe any fact or reason can prevent you from making the Bible say what you want, so don't let this stop you, either.

You have the penchant for presenting gullibility as the only guide for biblical content. Historical context is a far more convincing pointer to understanding.

The Maccabbean period is not the context for Daniel. You're off by several centuries.

[spin]

Se my amended edition for a little more clarity on the subject, though a scholarly commentary might hold your hand.

It would probably be a mistake not to see the Hellenistic crisis as the center of Daniel 7-12.

Historically, there's no connection. Several centuries separate Daniel from the events, and the tenor in Israel was totally transformed during the Seleucid period.

Personally, I don't believe any fact or reason can prevent you from making the Bible say what you want, so don't let this stop you, either.

You have the penchant for presenting gullibility as the only guide for biblical content. Historical context is a far more convincing pointer to understanding.

The Maccabbean period is not the context for Daniel. You're off by several centuries.

Believe what you want. You can be shown reason, but you are not constrained to follow it.

[Mental flatliner]

Se my amended edition for a little more clarity on the subject, though a scholarly commentary might hold your hand.

It would probably be a mistake not to see the Hellenistic crisis as the center of Daniel 7-12.

Historically, there's no connection. Several centuries separate Daniel from the events, and the tenor in Israel was totally transformed during the Seleucid period.

Personally, I don't believe any fact or reason can prevent you from making the Bible say what you want, so don't let this stop you, either.

You have the penchant for presenting gullibility as the only guide for biblical content. Historical context is a far more convincing pointer to understanding.

The Maccabbean period is not the context for Daniel. You're off by several centuries.

Believe what you want. You can be shown reason, but you are not constrained to follow it.

It has never been demonstrated that I can't follow reason.

I challenge all BS claims, such as this one.

Placing Bible stories into the wrong historical context is one of the most common errors made by people attempting to prove the Bible wrong in some way. It's nothing more than a strawman argument, beneath anyone claiming to be a scholar.

[spin]

The Maccabbean period is not the context for Daniel. You're off by several centuries.

Believe what you want. You can be shown reason, but you are not constrained to follow it.

It has never been demonstrated that I can't follow reason.

I challenge all BS claims, such as this one.

Placing Bible stories into the wrong historical context is one of the most common errors made by people attempting to prove the Bible wrong in some way. It's nothing more than a strawman argument, beneath anyone claiming to be a scholar.

It's ok. You aren't forced to engage your brain. You don't have to read scholarship. But thrill us all: what exactly are the events listed in Dan 11 all about??

Who, for example, is the official sent by the king of the north for the glory of the kingdom, who is the king (who comes after one who conquers the south), what is the glory, why is he broken within a few days, and how is he broken (11:20)?

History can help you.

[Mental flatliner]

It's ok. You aren't forced to engage your brain. You don't have to read scholarship. But thrill us all: what exactly are the events listed in Dan 11 all about??

Who, for example, is the official sent by the king of the north for the glory of the kingdom, who is the king (who comes after one who conquers the south), what is the glory, why is he broken within a few days, and how is he broken (11:20)?

History can help you.

(I'm not surprised at you trying to change the subject. That Maccabbean thing wasn't really working for you.)