In Reply to: Re: looking for validation? posted by susie on January 09, 2007 at 17:22:06:
Susie, I have considered it very much, at least the criticism I read very early...even as far back as 1980 (already in TF then), I was debating with a highschoolteacher, friend of mine then, about the book of Daniel from the point of view of Biblecriticism & please realise, that Germany is the country, which "cultivated" their Bible-criticism for a very long time & I am familiar with quite a lot of trains of thought...but I take heart in the fact, that meanwhile the pendulum has swung a bit back...extreme criticim is not so widespread as it used to be & there is a row of very good evangelical Theology-professors, who give the forgery-line no chance.
As far as the prophet Daniel is concerned...you
know probably, that many scholars put the author in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, who had profaned the jewish temple...some put the author as close as 100 B.C. , but still before the birth of Christ....that wouldn't explain though the mentioned scripture/verse...
Further the Qumran-rolls contain parts of the book of Daniel & the findings are dated into the 2nd/3rd century B.C., from what I know
Third it's highly illogical: The Pharasees had run
a school in Jamnia & also had a council there to establish the OT canon...further they established the cursing against the Christians, being repeated at the beginning of all worships...also the formal excommunication of all Christians.
That was in the 2nd century A.C. from what I gather, but still long before the oldest masoretic
text we still have.
You mean to say, the Pharasees, who were strongly against the Christians, were not able to guard their own OT texts?Plus the Isaiah-scroll is really nearly 100 % identical with the masoretic text, that means prophecies regarding the messiah
weren't altered then either.
This forgery-crap is just a mean, desperate try of unbelievers, critics, who desperately try to change the facts of history.