Eschatology: Daniel Passage-by-Passage
I’ll be looking at chapters 6 & 7 tonight, though 7 will doubtless stay in focus as we go through 8 & 9.
YouTube:
I’ll be looking at chapters 6 & 7 tonight, though 7 will doubtless stay in focus as we go through 8 & 9.
YouTube:
There is a whole category of assertions about the Bible that I call “pious,” that reflect people’s desire to respect the Bible and uphold its authority, but that are often inaccurate and poorly considered. I would ask whether a statement can be truly pious and respectful if it is also not true. My suggestion is…
Drew has agreed to a retake of his interview. We had significant audio problems. The content was so good, however, that I was hoping to ask him some of those questions and get a clearer result. The interview will be on July 16, 2015, and will be via Google Hangout on Air. To get the…
A friend e-mailed me about a post which caught my attention. It seems that a blogger wanted to use the feed of the ESV Bible from the official web site, but found that the terms of service required him to accept a doctrinal statement first (relevant links are in his entry). Personally, I think that…
Hat tip to Gentle Wisdom for this quiz on eschatology: What’s your eschatology?created with QuizFarm.com You scored as Amillenialist Amillenialism believes that the 1000 year reign is not literal but figurative, and that Christ began to reign at his ascension. People take some prophetic scripture far too literally in your view. Preterist 100% Amillenialist 100%…
Their hearts are clogged with fat;I delight in your instruction (Torah). A very literal alternative for the first half of the verse would be “fattened with fat are their hearts.” The REB translates: [T]hey are arrogant and unfeeling,but I find my delight in your instruction. With the heart being more the seat of thought than…
Continuing my discussion of Biblical criticism and the tools that make up that method, let’s look at genre and canonical criticism together. I do that, because they look generally at the same point in the production of the text as we have it, but look in different ways at that point in time. We have…
It occurred to me when listening to the repeated “according to the law of the Medes and Persians no decree or edict that the king issues can be changed” firstly that the law of the Medes and Persians is therefore hugely stupid (any student of law will quickly find that past precedents are a millstone round your neck when trying to find a just result) and secondly that the author may have expected his audience to pick up on that. It rather depends whether the authorship is before or after the advent of a tradition of picking away at the Mosaic Law and its interpreters among Jewish scholars (later they’d be universally called Rabbis, but maybe not at this date…)
It’s an interesting point, especially since I’m trying to look at the book from the perspective of two proposed times of writing and many possible redactional processes. I do believe that the king (Darius the Mede, unknown to history) is being portrayed negatively, but you may be right that the legal system is also receiving a similar portrayal. It would seem likely that such a commentary would be more likely with later dating, though it would fit with the Aramaic portions of the book coming from anywhere from the 5th to the 2nd century as the rabbinic laws are discussed and codified, though probably later in that period than earlier.