Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 296:
Line 296: − − − − − − − − − − − − When was the book of Daniel written?+ − − − By using 165 B.C. as the date of authorship, any prophecy before that date would be considered to be like writing about past events. However, events foretold to happen that occur after 165 B.C. are truly prophetic. Objective evidence to confirm each event is all that is required.+ − − To compare Daniel to the Qur’an requires that the study be limited to words claimed to be from the Archangel Gabriel. The 9th chapter of Daniel claims to be from Gabriel, making it an ideal choice to compare to the Qur’an. − − Daniel’s prophecy recorded in chapter 9 is called the prophecy of the 70-weeks. The Hebrew word for "weeks" means a period of 7-years [refer to Strong's Concordance Number 7620]. Therefore, the 70-weeks is based on multiplying 70 time 7-years, which equals 490 years. At various stages during this time, specific human events are expected to occur. The prophetic events are about the Jewish people, Jerusalem, and the coming Messiah. Christians logically accept this prophecy as being fulfilled by Jesus. We will soon understand why. − It is important to note that conservative Christian scholars do not accept the 165 B.C. date for when Daniel was written. As we move into verifying the individual prophecies contained in the 70-weeks prophecy, we will begin to understand why conservative scholars hold to the position that Daniel was authored as early as 530 B/C.. Although modern scholars (Naturalist) may not agree with the conservative dating, evidence exits to support the traditional Christian view. For now, we will use the 165 B.C. date.+ − What does the 70-weeks prophecy foretell?+ − The prophecy is based on a prayer given by Daniel. Daniel prays for the Jewish people, their sin, and that God will permit them to return from Babylon to Jerusalem. Daniel’s reason for praying is that another Jewish prophet, Jeremiah (refer to Jeremiah 29:10-12) had already foretold that the Jewish people would return to Jerusalem (Daniel 9:2-3). Daniel is simply wondering when the Jewish people would be allowed to return to Jerusalem.+ − + − Following is a quick overview of Gabriel’s prophecy, which centers on the coming Messiah.+ − + − + − + − + − − + − + − + − + − − − will admit that I accept this by faith (that God influenced the final − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − Books quoted by Jesus and the New Testament writers do not include Ezra Nehemiah Esther and Song of Songs. But this does not mean they are not inspired scripture. − − − There is ample evidence to justify the omission of these writings from our Bible despite the adoption of them by the Roman Catholic Church. Despite the misjudgment of those who made versions of the Old Testament and included the apocryphal books in the same collection with the Holy Scriptures; despite the error made by the students of these versions who began to interpret these apocryphal books on a plane which approached the Holy Scriptures; the apocryphal books are clearly not on that plane. The examination of the content of the book Bel and the Dragon and the examination of the external evidences surrounding the book boldly justify the exclusion of this work from the collection of books that have been and are today regarded as verbally inspired, genuinely preserved Holy Scriptures. This apocryphal book was considered by some as an addition to the book of Daniel but it was not included in the Hebrew Holy Scriptures. The writing itself does not have the authoritative style of Daniel, the accounts contradict details accredited to Daniel himself, and the third person style of a prophet's transport across time and space all make the writing clearly non-Daniel in authorship, a non inspired of God. The questionable authorship, date of writing, language and preservation clearly indicate that those who collected the writings from Daniel himself, had no access or at least no regard for the book now called Bel and the Dragon. The simple evidences presented in this work clearly justify the conclusion that was made 2400 years ago, that Bel and the Dragon is not Holy Scripture. − − − − The argument that the dragon in this account must have been an idol of a serpent is contested by R.H. Charles in his introduction to ''Bel and the Dragon.''<ref>Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon Pg. 653</ref> Such an argument is wholly without measure since plainly from the text the creature is a living creature, and from the text it is not just a large serpent. These clear distinctions are brought into controversy by those 'scholars' who believe that any dragon type creature would have been extinct millions of years before this writing. Such a long road of presuppositions paved with an evolutionary theory often cloud simple facts from the 'scholar's' view. There is ample evidence that dragon like creatures (today given the name dinosaur, meaning 'terrible lizard') were prevalent in the Babylonian era.<ref>Ham, Snelling, Wieland, The Answers Book, Pg. 21-39.</ref> − − − Although this is obvious to me because of my faith in God and His providence to preserve His Word, (Psalm 12:6-7 ''The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.'') this concept should be explored with the detailed manuscript evidence uncovered in the last 100 years. I must point out here, that scholars often say we know more now than we ever have about the transmittal of the Bible. This is not true. The scholars and scribes of the 1st through the 3rd century A.D. knew far more than any modern scholar is willing to give them credit for. After the turn of the century we have been overtly influenced by the philosophy of evolution to where we consider these as ignorant cave men, and us as highly evolved intellectuals. There is still an inbred reluctance in modern scholarship to acknowledge that these were holy men of God writing as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God, and not bumbling editors evolving a book that developed over thousands of years into a Bible. The latter begin the over-developed and prejudice theory of infidels over the past 150 years. − − − − The accounts emphasize the craftiness of Daniel above the provision, protection and wisdom of God. This in itself is permissible as it often occurs in other accounts of Bible characters. The concern here is that it appears to come as a third person account, and contain a flavor of a story told and passed on by those outside the king's palace, certainly not authored by Daniel, (although it is true that scripture writers sometimes wrote portions in third person.) . The story has as its theme the craftiness of Daniel to expose false idol worship. There is no need here to reject the events as fable or fiction. Indeed it is very likely that many instances of Daniel's wisdom, wit and ability were not recorded by Daniel himself, but were told and retold outside the palaces of the Babylonian kingdom and likely recorded in writing. Daniel did not likely exist day to day with a tremendous miracle of deliverance to account each week. However the passing on of his less miraculous, more crafty daily existence was not passed on as inspired and preserved scripture from the pen of a prophet. If the scribes that collected and preserved the sacred writings of that era thought these accounts unfit for addition to what was accepted as Daniel's writing, we certainly find nothing substantive within these accounts to warrant overriding that decision. − − − Again it is not necessary to dismiss these accounts as false, only to recognize they lack the authority of first person accounts, and therefore may be stories that were passed on without Godly inspiration or preservation of truth and detail. Indeed every part of the account of Bel is conceivable and believable. The account of the dragon is only conceivable and believable up to the point of the lion's den account. + + − So given the believableness of these accounts, their one drawback is the authority with which they present and support some revelation from God, of God. They fit better into a category of story that was passed outside the palaces emphasizing the craftiness of Daniel. They do not present revelation from God, preserved by God to record His sovereign dealings with his prophet Daniel. Thus there is not any internal evidence that Bel and the Dragon should have been included at the end of the writings of Daniel. The scribes who left them off were certainly justified as far as the internal evidences are concerned.+ − − − − Lion's Den Contradictions. − − The account of the lion's den experience, however, must be examined as a contradiction of the account in Daniel 6. It is probably the inclusion of this detail that first causes these accounts to be seen as stories passed on outside the palace walls. Either the account of Daniel 6 is accurate or the account of Bel and the Dragon is accurate. They both cannot fit together into the same account and an idea that Daniel was cast twice into a lion's den with such similar timing and circumstance cannot be supported. So one account is false or at best highly speculative in detail. The scribes who knew the sources of their manuscripts chose Daniel 6 as accurate. We can find here no evidence to override such a decision. In fact a brief examination supports their suspicions toward the Bel and the Dragon account. Lets contrast some of the differences in these accounts. − Thirdly within Bel and the Dragon the miraculous is presented as more of a fanciful, fairy tale, fable than an authoritative depiction of a miracle. This accusation is made because of the portrayal of Habbacuc's transportation from Judah to the Babylonian lion's den and then back.+ − The miraculous transport of Habbacuc to the lions den with a sack lunch for Daniel is so beyond belief that some contend it is "certainly a later piece having no necessary connection with the rest of the story" it is a far more fanciful thing than found elsewhere in scriptures, however just being different does not warrant its exclusion. (else we would eliminate the translation Elijah, the snatching away of Enoch or the other irregular miracles accounted in the scripture.) There are no other similar accounts of such a transport of one prophet to assist or encourage another in any other old testament scripture. Thus the miraculous zapping of one person across time or space is not lightly regarded here. So the downfall of the transport of Habbacoc is its total lack of authority, necessity, and significance. [However, see Acts 8:26-40 Where Philip was suddenly transported more than 40 miles from where he had baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, and was found at Azotus.]+ + + + + − + − +
additional information, and links. Source materials are being combined, synthesized, condensed and partially corrected and rewritten. Needs more work
Critics of the Book of Daniel who base their datings of the time of writing on extant 2nd century B.C. hand-copied manuscripts almost entirely ignore the fact that after Daniel wrote it, the book was sealed and kept hidden "until the time of the end". [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-4.htm Daniel 12:4] and [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-9.htm 12:9] This is why no textual manuscript evidence for the book predates the 2nd century B.C.. We know about the book and its inspired content only because it had finally been unsealed; then immediately handwritten manuscript copies were made and distributed to be read to the assemblies of the people beginning the 2nd century B.C. as proof that all that had happened had been prophesied. (A parallel example is found in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2044:24-45:7&version=KJV Isaiah 44:24-45:7].) The Book of Daniel is an extreme historical example of handwritten ''posthumous publication''.
Critics of the Book of Daniel who base their datings of the time of writing on extant 2nd century B.C. hand-copied manuscripts almost entirely ignore the fact that after Daniel wrote it, the book was sealed and kept hidden "until the time of the end". [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-4.htm Daniel 12:4] and [http://biblehub.com/multi/daniel/12-9.htm 12:9] This is why no textual manuscript evidence for the book predates the 2nd century B.C.. We know about the book and its inspired content only because it had finally been unsealed; then immediately handwritten manuscript copies were made and distributed to be read to the assemblies of the people beginning the 2nd century B.C. as proof that all that had happened had been prophesied. (A parallel example is found in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2044:24-45:7&version=KJV Isaiah 44:24-45:7].) The Book of Daniel is an extreme historical example of handwritten ''posthumous publication''.
The Prayer of the Three Holy Children is a segment of a larger component called The Prayer of Azariah and the Prayer of the Three Holy Children which, although part of the Septuagint text, is considered by Protestants as part of the Apocrypha rather than a fully canonical part of Scripture, and so appears in most English-language bibles as a separate section. When included within the larger text of Daniel, it appears in the third chapter of between verses 23 and 24.
The Prayer of the Three Holy Children is a segment of a larger component called The Prayer of Azariah and the Prayer of the Three Holy Children which, although part of the Septuagint text, is considered by Protestants as part of the Apocrypha rather than a fully canonical part of Scripture, and so appears in most English-language bibles as a separate section. When included within the larger text of Daniel, it appears in the third chapter of between verses 23 and 24.
The song constitutes a hymn of thanksgiving to God for deliverence from the fiery furnace into which the three young men, Ananias, Azarias and Misael (also known as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) had been cast by the Persian king Nebuchadnezzar. They were cast into the furnace for refusing to worship a golden idol that Nebuchadnezzar had created. However, an Angel of the Lord entered the furnace and protected the three young men. In liturgical practice, the event is seen to presage the Resurrection of Christ, thus its inclusion in the canon.
The song constitutes a hymn of thanksgiving to God for deliverence from the fiery furnace into which the three young men, Ananias, Azarias and Misael (also known as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) had been cast by the Persian king Nebuchadnezzar. They were cast into the furnace for refusing to worship a golden idol that Nebuchadnezzar had created. However, an Angel of the Lord entered the furnace and protected the three young men. In liturgical practice, the event is seen to presage the Resurrection of Christ, thus its inclusion in the canon.
The Abingdon Bible Handbook (ISBN 0687001692) suggests that the Prayer was based on an earlier composition and was added to the existing text of Daniel sometime in the second or first century B.C.
The Abingdon Bible Handbook (ISBN 0687001692) suggests that the Prayer was based on an earlier composition and was added to the existing text of Daniel sometime in the second or first century B.C.
There is the strongest evidence respecting the genuineness and authenticity of the book, both internal and external. We have the testimony of Christ himself, [http://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/24-15.htm Matthew 24:15]; of St. John and St. Paul, who have copied his prophecies; of the Jewish synagogue and nation, who have constantly received this book as canonical but have never ranked it among the Prophets; of Josephus, who recommends him as the greatest of the prophets; and of the Jewish ''tannaim'' and ''amoraim'', which frequently in the Talmud cite his authority. As to the internal evidence, the style, language, and manner of writing perfectly agree with the historical period represented from Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon into the reigns of Cyrus and Darius of Persia; and especially, Daniel is proved to have been a prophet by the exact fulfilment of his predictions. This book, like that of Ezra, is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee, the prevailing language of the Babylonians, and was translated in its entirety for the Jews of the Diaspora into Greek, the prevailing language of the entire [[Levant]] and middle east from the 2nd century B.C. through the 1st century of Christianity.
There is the strongest evidence respecting the genuineness and authenticity of the book, both internal and external. We have the testimony of Christ himself, [http://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/24-15.htm Matthew 24:15]; of St. John and St. Paul, who have copied his prophecies; of the Jewish synagogue and nation, who have constantly received this book as canonical but have never ranked it among the Prophets; of Josephus, who recommends him as the greatest of the prophets; and of the Jewish ''tannaim'' and ''amoraim'', which frequently in the Talmud cite his authority. As to the internal evidence, the style, language, and manner of writing perfectly agree with the historical period represented from Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon into the reigns of Cyrus and Darius of Persia; and especially, Daniel is proved to have been a prophet by the exact fulfilment of his predictions. This book, like that of Ezra, is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee, the prevailing language of the Babylonians, and was translated in its entirety for the Jews of the Diaspora into Greek, the prevailing language of the entire [[Levant]] and middle east from the 2nd century B.C. through the 1st century of Christianity.
===Date of the Book===
===Date of the Book===
The date the book of Daniel was written is controversial. For conservative Christians, the earliest date is about 530 B.C.. For liberal scholars (Naturalists), the latest data is about 165 B.C..
The date for when the book of Daniel was written is somewhat controversial. For conservative Christians, the earliest date is about 530 B.C.. For liberal scholars (Naturalists), the latest data is about 165 B.C..
===Foretold Events after 165 B.C.===
===Foretold Events after 165 B.C.===
Using 165 B.C. as the date of authorship, any prophecy before that date is considered to be writing after the fact about past events. However, events foretold to occur after 165 B.C. are truly prophetic. Objective evidence to confirm each event is all that is required.
Daniel’s prophecy recorded in chapter 9 has frequently been called ''the Prophecy of the 70-weeks''. The Hebrew word for "weeks" means a period of 7-years ([see [http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7620.htm Strong's Concordance Number 7620]). The 70-weeks is a multiplication of 70 times 7-years, equaling 490 years. During this period, at various stages, specific human events are expected, relating to the Jewish people, to Jerusalem, and to the coming Messiah. Christians logically accept this prophecy of an everlasting kingdom as being fulfilled by Jesus.
Conservative Christian scholars do not accept the proposed 165 B.C. as the date when the Book of Daniel was written. Verification of the individual prophecies in the 70-weeks period as corresponding to historical events does offer an explanation of why conservative scholars hold to the position that Daniel was authored as early as 530 B.C.. Although modern scholars (Naturalist) may not agree with the conservative dating, evidence exists to support the traditional conservative Christian view. The 165 B.C. date proposed by most Biblical scholars can substantiate the conservative view that the Book of Daniel is genuine prophesy.
;What does the 70-weeks prophecy foretell?
The Archangel Gabriel brings an answer to Daniel that foretells the future. Just as Daniel had prayed about the Jewish people and their return to Jerusalem, Gabriel gives Daniel a prophecy about the future of the Jewish people and Jerusalem. However, Gabriel links the Jewish people and their return to the coming of the Messiah.
The prophecy including future events is based on a prayer made by Daniel. He prays for the Jewish people, their sin, and he begs that God will permit them to return from Babylon to Jerusalem. Daniel's precedent for his petition is another Jewish prophet, Jeremiah ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%2029:10-12&version=DRA Jeremiah 29:10-12]), who had already foretold that the Jewish people would return to Jerusalem ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%209:2-3&version=DRA Daniel 9:2-3]). Daniel only asks when the Jewish people will be allowed to return to Jerusalem.
The Archangel Gabriel brings an answer to Daniel from God that foretells the future. Gabriel gives Daniel a prophecy about the future of the Jewish people and Jerusalem. However, according to Christian reading of the scripture, Gabriel links the Jewish people and their return to the coming of the Messiah.
Christians accept Daniel’s prophecy of the 70-weeks because the prophetic events fit Jesus’ life so well. In general, people understand the 70-weeks prophecy to be literally foretelling of the Messiah. There are three primary reasons why Christians take the view that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy literally.
Most Christians accept that the prophetic events of Daniel’s prophecy of the 70-weeks fit Jesus’ life and ministry, generally understanding the 70-weeks prophecy to be a literally foretelling of the Messiah. Three primary reasons are usually presented as to why Christians take the view that Jesus literally fulfilled this prophecy, though some disagree.
First and foremost, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah would be killed at Jerusalem.
First and foremost, according to this view, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah (an anointed one) would be killed at Jerusalem.
Second, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah had to appear at Jerusalem before its destruction. Jerusalem was destroyed in the year A.D. 70, which fits Jesus’ lifetime.
Second, according to this view, the prophecy reveals that the Messiah (an anointed one) had to appear at Jerusalem before its destruction. Jerusalem was destroyed in the year A.D. 70, which fits Jesus’ lifetime.
Third, the purpose of the 70-weeks prophecy as described by verse 24 is mirrored by the basic teachings of the New Testament. Many Christians take the view that verse 24 is a summary of the gospel story, based on the Messiah’s death foretold in verse 26. There is purpose in the Messiah’s death based on what Gabriel foretold.
Third, many Christians take the view that [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:20-22&version=KJV Daniel 11:20-22] is a summary of the gospel story, based on the interpretation that the purpose of the Messiah’s death is foretold in the 70-weeks prophecy as described by [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2011:31-35&version=KJV verses 31-35] which mirrors the basic teachings of the New Testament. There is purpose in the Messiah’s death based on what Gabriel foretold [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2012:1-3&version=KJV Daniel 12:1-3].
===Fundamentalist textual evaluation===
===Fundamentalist textual evaluation===
God used the Jewish teachers/rabbis as the arbiters of what is to be
God used the Jewish teachers/rabbis as the arbiters of what is to be considered an approved text. They said no to the additions to Daniel. Many fundamentalists agree with their assessment by looking at these additional texts. If one were to ask their opinion, these texts to do not appear to them to be inspired. The Jews, by consensus, accepted Genesis-Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,?..,Ecclesiastes,?. But they did not accept 2 Maccabees, Jubilees, 3 Enoch, additions to Daniel, etc into their canon. They admit that they accept by faith that God influenced the final
considered an approved text. They said no to the additions to Daniel. I
canon of the OT as selected by ''the consensus of the Jews after the time of Christ'', which may not be a very useful instrument to "one who does not have faith" (a variation of the [[No True Scotsman|logical fallacy of No true Scotsman]]. The [[Masoretic Text|MT]] does not
agree with their assessment by looking at these additional texts. If one
include these texts (from the 8th century). The fundamentalist will say the LXX did not either, and yet admit that although it is true that when Jerome translated the OT he was forced (against his will, they add) to include the "Apocrypha" in the Vulgate translation. The Masoretic text is clear on this. But what is to be included in the LXX is not clear to them. Some who oppose their view say that anything which was translated into Greek B.C. which eventually made it into the Vulgate is, by definition, part of the LXX. But fundamentalist Christians do not agree at all, pointing out that this is [[proof by definition]], which is not a good form of proof. They insist that the parts of the Greek/Jewish literature which are to be accepted are the parts of the Greek Bible (and therefore the LXX) which were accepted by the '''Jews''', for example, at the Council of Jamnia, after the establishment of the Christian Church. There is no absolutely clear cut list or canon that all Jews accepted, but the consensus of A.D. the first centuries among the Jews is
were to ask my opinion, these texts to do not appear inspired. The Jews, by consensus, accepted
that Ecclesiasticus, Bel and the Dragon etc. are not inspired. Fundamentalists point out that neither Jesus nor the NT writers ever quoted even a single time from Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, Tobit, Bel and the Dragon, yet they quoted extensively from virtually every OT book. They insist that the only exception is a possible quote or at least a direct reference to Enoch in Jude.
Genesis-Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,?..,Ecclesiastes,?. But they did not accept 2
Maccabees, Jubilees, 3 Enoch, additions to Daniel, etc into their canon. Now, I
canon of the OT as selected by the consensus of the Jews), which may not
be a very useful instrument to one who dies not have faith. MT does not
include these texts. The LXX did not either, although it is true that
when Jerome translated the OT he was forced (against his will, I might
add) to include the "Apocrypha" in the Vulgate translation. The
Masoretic text is clear on this. What is to be included in the LXX is not
clear. Some say anything which was translated into Greek B.C. which
eventually made it into the Vulgate is, by definition, part of the LXX. I
do not agree at all. This is proof by definition, which is not a good
form of proof. The parts of the Greek/Jewish literature which are to be
accepted are the parts of the Greek Bible (and therefore the LXX) which
were accepted by the Jews, for example, at the Council of Jamnia. There is no absolutely clear cut list that all Jews accepted, but the consensus of A.D. the first centuries is
that Ecclesiasticus, Bel and the Dragon etc. are not inspired. Neither Jesus nor the NT writers ever quoted even a single time from Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, Tobit, Bel and
the Dragon, yet they quoted extensively from virtually every OT book. The only exception is a possible quote or at least a direct reference to Enoch in Jude.
Yet the books quoted by Jesus and the New Testament writers do not include Ezra Nehemiah Esther and Song of Songs. But this does not mean they are not inspired scripture.
Fundamentalists consistently affirm that there is ample evidence to justify the omission of these writings from the Christian Bible despite the adoption of them by the Roman Catholic Church. Their position is that despite the "misjudgment" of those who made versions of the Old Testament and included the apocryphal books in the same collection with the Holy Scriptures; despite the "error" made by the students of these versions who began to interpret these apocryphal books on a plane which approached the Holy Scriptures; the apocryphal books are "clearly not on the plane of the Holy Scriptures". They maintain that examination of the content of the book ''Bel and the Dragon'' (Daniel chapter 14) and the examination of the external evidences surrounding that book (that chapter) boldly justify exclusion of this work from the collection of books that have been and are today regarded as verbally inspired, genuinely preserved Holy Scriptures. They point out that this apocryphal book was considered by some as an addition to the book of Daniel but that it was not included after the time of Christ in the Hebrew Holy Scriptures by the rabbinical Jewish school at Jamnia and the Masoretic scholars among the Jews. The writing itself does not appear to fundamentalist Protestants to have the authoritative style of Daniel, for the accounts in these texts according to their reading contradict details accredited to Daniel himself, and they see that the third person style of a prophet's transport across time and space all makes the writing clearly non-Daniel in authorship, and non-inspired of God. They see the questionable authorship, the date of writing, the language and preservation as clearly indicating that those who collected the writings from Daniel himself, had no access or at least no regard for the book (the 14th chapter of Daniel) now called ''Bel and the Dragon''. These simple evidences which fundamentalists present clearly justify to them "the conclusion made 2400 years ago", that ''Bel and the Dragon'' is not Holy Scripture. Yet it was included and preserved as an integral part of the ''Greek Bible'' of the early Christian Church from the 1st century.
The argument that the dragon in this account must have been an idol of a serpent is contested by R.H. Charles in his introduction to ''Bel and the Dragon.''<ref>Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon Pg. 653</ref> Such an argument is wholly without measure since plainly from the text the creature is a living creature, and from the text it is not just a large serpent. These clear distinctions are brought into controversy by those 'scholars' who believe that any dragon type creature would have been extinct millions of years before this writing. Such a long road of presuppositions paved with an evolutionary theory often cloud simple facts from the 'scholar's' view. There is ample evidence that dragon like creatures (today given the name dinosaur, meaning 'terrible lizard') were prevalent in the Babylonian era.<ref>Ham, Snelling, Wieland, The Answers Book, Pg. 21-39.</ref>
The argument that the dragon in this account must have been an idol of a serpent is contested by R.H. Charles in his introduction to ''Bel and the Dragon.''<ref>Charles, R.H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 1983, Introduction to Bel and the Dragon Pg. 653</ref> Such an argument is wholly without measure since plainly from the text the creature is a living creature, and from the text it is not just a large serpent. These clear distinctions are brought into controversy by those 'scholars' who believe that any dragon type creature would have been extinct millions of years before this writing. Such a long road of presuppositions paved with an evolutionary theory often cloud simple facts from the 'scholar's' view. There is ample evidence that dragon like creatures (today given the name dinosaur, meaning 'terrible lizard') were prevalent in the Babylonian era.<ref>Ham, Snelling, Wieland, The Answers Book, Pg. 21-39.</ref>
Although scholars often say we know more now than we ever have about the transmittal of the Bible. This is not necessarily true. The scholars and scribes of the 1st through the 3rd century A.D. knew far more than any modern scholar is willing to credit them, they being closer in time to the origin of the writings than we are. After the turn of the century Biblical scholars have been overtly influenced by the philosophy of evolution to where they consider these early scholars as ignorant cave men, and themselves as highly evolved intellectuals. There is still an inbred reluctance in modern scholarship to acknowledge that these were holy men of God writing as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God, and not bumbling editors collecting and evolving and editing writings over thousands of years that developed into a book now called a Bible. The 19th century German Biblical scholars began the over-developed and prejudiced theory embraced by radical liberalist scholars over the past 150 years.
In the view of fundamentalist Biblical scholars the accounts in Daniel 13 and 14 emphasize the craftiness of Daniel above the provision, protection and wisdom of God. They acknowledge that this in itself is permissible, since it often occurs in other accounts of canonical Bible characters. Their concern here is that it appears to come as a third person account, and that it appears to them to contain a flavor of a story told and passed on by those outside the king's palace, and as certainly not authored by Daniel, although they admit that it is true that scripture writers sometimes wrote portions in third person. The story has as its theme what appears to them to be the craftiness of Daniel to expose false idol worship, which other accept as the expression of divine wisdom. Fundamentalists point out that there is no need here to reject these events as fable or fiction, that indeed it is very likely that many instances of Daniel's wisdom, wit and ability were not recorded by Daniel himself, but were told and retold outside the palaces of the Babylonian kingdom and likely recorded in writing. Daniel did not likely exist day to day with a tremendous miracle of deliverance to account each week. However the passing on of what they regard as his "less miraculous, more crafty" daily existence, as interpreted by them, was not passed on as inspired and preserved scripture from the pen of a prophet. They maintain that if the Jewish scribes that collected and preserved the sacred writings of that era after the time of Christ thought these accounts unfit for addition to what was accepted as Daniel's writing, they certainly find nothing substantive within these accounts to warrant overriding their decision.
Again, fundamentalist Christians insist that it is not necessary to dismiss these accounts as false, only to recognize they lack the authority of first person accounts, and therefore may be stories that were passed on without Godly inspiration or preservation of truth and detail. They maintain that indeed every part of the account of Bel is conceivable and believable, but that the account of the dragon is only conceivable and believable up to the point of the lion's den account. They say that given the credibility of these accounts, their one drawback is the degree of authority with which they present and support some revelation from God, and of God, saying that they fit better into a category of story that was passed outside the palaces emphasizing the craftiness of Daniel. They do not seem to them to present revelation from God, as preserved by God, to record His sovereign dealings with his prophet Daniel. Thus according to this view there is not any internal evidence that ''Bel and the Dragon'' should have been included at the end of the writings of Daniel, even if they were part of the Septuagint Old Testament of the Christian ''Greek Bible''. As far as the internal evidences are concerned, according to fundamentalist Christians, the Jewish scribes who left them out of the Jewish canon were certainly justified.
===Lion's Den Contradictions===
The account of the lion's den experience is examined by fundamentalists as a contradiction of the account in Daniel 6, although it is presented as a separate and much later event. The inclusion of this detail that first causes these accounts to be seen by fundamentalist scholars as stories passed on outside the palace walls. They point out that either the account of Daniel 6 is accurate or the account of Bel and the Dragon is accurate, but that both cannot fit together into the same account, and that the idea that Daniel was cast twice into a lion's den with such similar timing and circumstance cannot be supported. So they conclude that one account is false or at best highly speculative in detail. The Jewish scribes who knew the sources of their manuscripts chose Daniel 6 as accurate. Fundamentalist Christian scholars find here no evidence to override such a decision, but instead that "in fact" a brief examination supports the Jews
' suspicions toward the ''Bel and the Dragon'' account. They contrast some of the differences in these accounts. In the fundamentalist view, within ''Bel and the Dragon'' the miraculous is presented as more of a fanciful fairy tale, as a fable, than as an authoritative depiction of a miracle. This accusation is made because of the portrayal of Habbacuc's transportation from Judah to the Babylonian lion's den and then back.
The miraculous transport of Habbacuc to the lions den with a "sack lunch" for Daniel is for them so beyond belief that some contend it is "certainly a later piece having no necessary connection with the rest of the story" and that it is a far more fanciful thing than found elsewhere in scriptures. However just being different does not warrant its exclusion. (else they would eliminate the translation Elijah, the snatching away of Enoch or the other irregular miracles accounted in the scripture.) They maintain that there are no other similar accounts of such a transport of one prophet to assist or encourage another in any other old testament scripture. Thus the miraculous "zapping" of one person across time or space is not lightly regarded here. So they emphasize that the downfall of the transport of Habbacoc is what they see as its total lack of authority, necessity, and significance. However, see Acts 8:26-40 Where Philip was suddenly transported more than 40 miles from where he had baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, and was found at Azotus.
Examination of the book Bel and the Dragon reveals that this writing does not follow the pattern and authority of Daniel's hand to emphasize the power of God over the craftiness of man. The writing even contradicts the Daniel given account of the lion's den, and the miraculous transport of Habbacuc to the den's mouth is not in the first person nor authoritative, and thus fanciful and more presentation of legend then a historical event. The book of Daniel interweaves history with spiritual revelation and does this with supernatural skill and authority. To include such a narration as Bel and the Dragon at the end of God's masterpiece through Daniel would be certain folly. Folly that was avoided by the scribes who collected the scriptures at the end of the Babylonian Captivity. This examination of the internal evidences of Bel and the Dragon reveal little credibility to override the initial decision to 'hide' this section from the temple books considered Holy Scripture and classify it as an apocryphal book. This initial decision and the treatment of this writing through history will now be more closely examined as we look at external evidences for the rejection of Bel and the Dragon as Holy Scripture.
Examination of the book Bel and the Dragon reveals to fundamentalist scholars and commentators that this writing "does not follow the pattern and authority of Daniel's hand to emphasize the power of God over the craftiness of man". The writing "even contradicts the Daniel given account of the lion's den", and the miraculous transport of Habbacuc to the den's mouth "is not in the first person nor authoritative", and is thus "fanciful" and more a "presentation of legend than a historical event". The book of Daniel interweaves history with spiritual revelation and does this with supernatural skill and authority. They insist that to include such a narration as Bel and the Dragon at the end of God's masterpiece through Daniel would be "certain folly", folly that was avoided by the scribes who collected the scriptures at the end of the Babylonian Captivity. This examination of the internal evidences of Bel and the Dragon reveals to them little credibility for overriding what they see as the initial Jewish decision to "hide" this section from the temple books they considered as Holy Scripture and classify it as an apocryphal book. Fundamentalists look at external evidences for the rejection of Bel and the Dragon as Holy Scripture.
Examination of the book Bel and the Dragon reveals that this writing does not follow the pattern and authority of Daniel's hand to emphasize the power of God over the craftiness of man. The writing even contradicts the Daniel given account of the lion's den, and the miraculous transport of Habbacuc to the den's mouth is not in the first person nor authoritative, and thus fanciful and more presentation of legend then a historical event. The book of Daniel interweaves history with spiritual revelation and does this with supernatural skill and authority. To include such a narration as Bel and the Dragon at the end of God's masterpiece through Daniel would be certain folly. Folly that was avoided by the scribes who collected the scriptures at the end of the Babylonian Captivity. This examination of the internal evidences of Bel and the Dragon reveal little credibility to override the initial decision to 'hide' this section from the temple books considered Holy Scripture and classify it as an apocryphal book. This initial decision and the treatment of this writing through history will now be more closely examined as we look at external evidences for the rejection of Bel and the Dragon as Holy Scripture.
Examination of the book Bel and the Dragon reveals to them that this writing does not follow the pattern and authority of Daniel's hand to emphasize the power of God over the craftiness of man. The writing even contradicts the Daniel given account of the lion's den, and the miraculous transport of Habbacuc to the den's mouth is not in the first person nor authoritative, and thus fanciful and more presentation of legend then a historical event. The book of Daniel interweaves history with spiritual revelation and does this with supernatural skill and authority. To include such a narration as Bel and the Dragon at the end of God's masterpiece through Daniel would be certain folly. Folly that was avoided by the scribes who collected the scriptures at the end of the Babylonian Captivity. This examination of the internal evidences of Bel and the Dragon reveal little credibility to override the initial decision to 'hide' this section from the temple books considered Holy Scripture and classify it as an apocryphal book. This initial decision and the treatment of this writing through history will now be more closely examined as we look at external evidences for the rejection of Bel and the Dragon as Holy Scripture.
External Evidences
External Evidences