Alexander mkuu alivyotabiriwa na Biblia kwa usahihi

[Kiranga]

Nasoma vizuri sana ,na najitahidi kupitia kwenye hoja zako, maswali hujibu sababu unapalaza tu kiwepes ,

Nitarudia Tena uone kuwa upo shallow ,na kwa majibu haya inakubidi ukasome Tena

Swali lako la kwanza unasema

“Kama Daniel hakuwapo, na mtu aliandika baadaye akijifanya yeye, cha ajabu ni nini kama akipatia matukio yaliyokuwa tayari yametokea?”


kwanza unatakiwa ujue kitabu cha Danieli hakisimamii tu historia ya Babeli, Medo-Persia na Ugiriki.,kama unavyodhani , Kinaendelea kuonyesha mambo yaliyotokea baada ya karne ya kwanza K.K., kama vile kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu mwaka 70 B.K., pamoja na mambo ya mwisho kama ufufuo, hukumu na Ufalme wa Mungu (Danieli 12:1–3).

Hii ni tofauti kubwa na maandiko ya uongo ya Kiyahudi (pseudepigrapha), ambayo mara nyingi yalijikita tu katika historia ya nyuma.

Mfano wako wa mtu kuandika mwaka 1800 akitabiri maisha ya Nyerere unaweza kueleza mambo yaliyopita, lakini hauwezi kueleza kwa usahihi matukio ya karne nyingi baadaye hadi sasa na yajayo., Hivo hoja yako ni mfu ,ndio maana nakushangaa unakwama wapi ...

Kuhusu makosa ya Kihistoria unayosema moja ni “Dario Mmedi” ambaye hajulikani vizuri katika vyanzo vya nje, au mfuatano wa wafalme wa Babeli na Medo-Persia.

Cha ajabu na kilichokuja kuwaumbua hao unawaotegenea , archaeology baadaye.,imekuja kuthibitisha Kwa 100%,

Kwa mfano, kwa karne nyingi Belshaza hakujulikana kabisa katika historia, lakini maandiko ya cuneiform yaliyogunduliwa karne ya 19 yalibainisha kuwa kweli alikuwa regent, mwana wa Nabonidus jambo linalolingana kabisa na Danieli 5.
View attachment 3443333


KWAHIYO HOJA YAKO IMEKUFA KIFO CHA MENDE,


Pili, kuhusu “Dario Mmedi,” tafsiri bado inajadiliwa, na tafsiri moja ni kwamba jina hilo linamrejelea Gubaru, mtawala aliyeteuliwa na Koreshi baada ya kuanguka kwa Babeli.

Dead Sea Scrolls pia ni muhimu kwa sababu zinaonyesha kuwa ifikapo karne ya pili K.K., kitabu cha Danieli tayari kiliheshimiwa kama kitabu cha kinabii na kilishasambazwa.

Hii ina maana kwamba hakiwezi kuwa kilitungwa baada ya wakati huo, wala kusiwepo na nafasi ya “kuhariri” unabii wa kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu mwaka 70 A.D., kwani maandiko yalikuwa tayari yameshaandikwa ,hii nayo inakufa kibudu.

Kuhusu hoja ya kutokuwepo kwa ushahidi wa kihistoria wa mtu binafsi aitwaye Danieli, ni hoja Nyepesi sana ,baada ya kushindwa kujibu hoja hapo juu

Vyanzo vilivyopona kutoka Babeli ni vichache sana na havikutaja kila mtu aliyehudumu ikulu.

Kuna watu wengi waliokuwa na nafasi kubwa lakini hawajulikani leo.

Hivyo kutokupatikana kwa jina la Danieli hakuthibitishi moja kwa moja kwamba hakuwapo.

Ikiwa Danieli hakuwapo na kitabu kiliandikwa baadaye, unabii wa kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu mwaka 70 B.K. uliandikwa vipi kabla ya tukio hilo?

Kwa nini kitabu cha Danieli kilipewa hadhi ya kinabii na Wayahudi wa Qumran ikiwa kilikuwa “hadithi iliyotungwa tu”?

Unawezaje kueleza ukweli kwamba Belshaza, aliyesemekana kuwa “kosa la kihistoria,” alithibitishwa na archaeology karne nyingi baadaye, sawa kabisa na simulizi la Danieli?

Je, kutokuwepo kwa kumbukumbu za moja kwa moja za Danieli ni ushahidi thabiti wa kutoishi kwake, ilhali rekodi za kale ni chache na hazikuhifadhi majina ya maelfu ya watumishi wa kifalme?

Mpaka hapa bado unatapatapa sana lakini hujathibitisha Daniel aliwahi kuishi.

Kwanza kabisa unaweka habari nyingi za kuthibitisha historia na mambo mengi, habari zenye utata mwingi, ambazo hata nikitaka kuufumbia macho utata huo, for tge sake of argument, twende tu kusema labda ni kweli historia imepatiwa, habari hizo bado hazithibitishi Daniel aliwahi kuishi.

Kwa sababu watu wengine wengi tu waliweza juandika hizo habari, katika mida tofauti, na kusema ni Daniel aliyeandika, wakati Daniel hakuwahi kuwapo.

Thibitisha Daniel aliwahi kuishi kwa ushahidi ambao haupo katika Biblia.

Usinipe rekodi za archeology zinazoonesha Wafalme walikuwapo, hizo hazithibitishi Daniel alikuwapo.

Usiweke rekodi za kuonesha kitabu cha Daniel kilikuwapo na kilitabiri mambo sawa na historia.

Hayo yoye hayathibitishi Daniel alikuwapo.

 

[Kiranga]

Huyo huwa anajifanya ana akili kuliko wote humu....

Hapana hiyo ni inferiority complex yako tu.

Pia ni ad hominem logical fallacy.

Jadili hoja usimjadili mtoa hoja.

Ukimjadili mtoa hoja wakati hujajadili hoja unajionesha huna uwezo wa kujadili hoja unaleta viroja tu.

 

[hamis77]

Mpaka hapa bado unatapatapa sana lakini hujathibitisha Daniel aliwahi kuishi.

Kwanza kabisa unaweka habari nyingi za kuthibitisha historia na mambo mengi, habari zenye utata mwingi, ambazo hata nikitaka kuufumbia macho utata huo, for tge sake of argument, twende tu kusema labda ni kweli historia imepatiwa, habari hizo bado hazithibitishi Daniel aliwahi kuishi.

Kwa sababu watu wengine wengi tu waliweza juandika hizo habari, katika mida tofauti, na kusema ni Daniel aliyeandika, wakati Daniel hakuwahi kuwapo.

Thibitisha Daniel aliwahi kuishi kwa ushahidi ambao haupo katika Biblia.

Usinipe rekodi za archeology zinazoonesha Wafalme walikuwapo, hizo hazithibitishi Daniel alikuwapo.

Usiweke rekodi za kuonesha kitabu cha Daniel kilikuwapo na kilitabiri mambo sawa na historia.

Hayo yoye hayathibitishi Daniel alikuwapo.

Unajua kwanini unakwepa maswali ninayokuuliza na unakuja na hoja VITUKO?

 

[Kiranga]

Unajua kwanini unakwepa maswali ninayokuuliza na unakuja na hoja VITUKO?

Mpaka sasa hujathibitisha Daniel aliwahi kuishi.

Swali hili unalikwepa.

Kwa sababu huwezi kuthibitisha Daniel aliwahi kuwepo.

Kwa sababu hakuwahi kuwepo.

Ni muhusika wa hadithi ya kutungwa na watu tu. Watu wamemtunga kwa kuungaunga hadithi tu, baadaye sana.

Kama unabisha, thibitisha Daniel aliwahi kuwepo.

Weka ushahidi kwamba aliwahi kuishi.

Ushahidi nje ya Biblia.

Pia, usiweke ushahidi kuwa wafalme walikuwapo, au kitabu cha Daniel kimeandika sawa na historia.

Hayo yote hayathibitishi Daniel alikuwapo.

Nataka ushahidi kwamba Daniel alikuwapo.

Hujawahi kuweka uthibitisho huu.

 

[hamis77]

Mpaka sasa hujathibitisha Daniel aliwahi kuishi.

Swali hili unalikwepa.

Kwa sababu huwezi kuthibitisha Daniel aliwahi kuwepo.

Kwa sababu hakuwahi kuwepo.

Ni muhusika wa hadithi ya kutungwa na watu tu. Watu wamemtunga kwa kuungaunga hadithi tu, baadaye sana.

Kama unabisha, thibitisha Daniel aliwahi kuwepo.

Weka ushahidi kwamba aliwahi kuishi.

Ushahidi nje ya Biblia.

Pia, usiweke ushahidi kuwa wafalme walikuwapo, au kitabu cha Daniel kimeandika sawa na historia.

Hayo yote hayathibitishi Daniel alikuwapo.

Nataka ushahidi kwamba Daniel alikuwapo.

Hujawahi kuweka uthibitisho huu.

Tena

Swali lako la kwanza unasema

“Kama Daniel hakuwapo, na mtu aliandika baadaye akijifanya yeye, cha ajabu ni nini kama akipatia matukio yaliyokuwa tayari yametokea?”


kwanza unatakiwa ujue kitabu cha Danieli hakisimamii tu historia ya Babeli, Medo-Persia na Ugiriki.,kama unavyodhani , Kinaendelea kuonyesha mambo yaliyotokea baada ya karne ya kwanza K.K., kama vile kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu mwaka 70 B.K., pamoja na mambo ya mwisho kama ufufuo, hukumu na Ufalme wa Mungu (Danieli 12:1–3).

Hii ni tofauti kubwa na maandiko ya uongo ya Kiyahudi (pseudepigrapha), ambayo mara nyingi yalijikita tu katika historia ya nyuma.

Mfano wako wa mtu kuandika mwaka 1800 akitabiri maisha ya Nyerere unaweza kueleza mambo yaliyopita, lakini hauwezi kueleza kwa usahihi matukio ya karne nyingi baadaye hadi sasa na yajayo., Hivo hoja yako ni mfu ,ndio maana nakushangaa unakwama wapi ...

Kuhusu makosa ya Kihistoria unayosema moja ni “Dario Mmedi” ambaye hajulikani vizuri katika vyanzo vya nje, au mfuatano wa wafalme wa Babeli na Medo-Persia.

Cha ajabu na kilichokuja kuwaumbua hao unawaotegenea , archaeology baadaye.,imekuja kuthibitisha Kwa 100%,

Kwa mfano, kwa karne nyingi Belshaza hakujulikana kabisa katika historia, lakini maandiko ya cuneiform yaliyogunduliwa karne ya 19 yalibainisha kuwa kweli alikuwa regent, mwana wa Nabonidus jambo linalolingana kabisa na Danieli 5.

 

[Kiranga]

Unajua kwanini unakwepa maswali ninayokuuliza na unakuja na hoja VITUKO?

Who wrote the Book of Daniel

What does it means to say that "Daniel wrote/Did not write the book of Daniel?" Are we saying: 1. Daniel did not produce the finish product but could have provided the notes 2. Daniel had nothing...

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

Who wrote the Book of Daniel​

What does it means to say that "Daniel wrote/Did not write the book of Daniel?" Are we saying: 1. Daniel did not produce the finish product but could have provided the notes 2. Daniel had nothing at all to do with the production or compilation of of the book?

Traditionally​

The traditional Jewish and Christian identification of the author of the book of Daniel is, of course, Daniel himself. All biographical details about Daniel in the book are taken at face value: he was a young member of the Judean nobility, deported to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in the year 605 BC, who quickly found favor with the Babylonian court for his wisdom, and subsequently became an interpreter of dreams and had prophetic dreams of his own.1

The entire book is obviously the work of one writer. . . . . If Daniel is named as the one who received certain revelations, it follows that he must be the author of the whole book. Therefore the book purports to have been written in the sixth century before Christ. It claims to be the fruit of the ministry of a Jewish captive named Daniel who occupied high positions in the courts of the kings who ruled Mesopotamia. The book's claims are bolstered by the fact that the historical context of Daniel is the Babylonian and Persian empires, and not the Hellenistic world of the second century when critics date the book.

---

Critically​

The answer of critical scholarship is much more complex. The book of Daniel is divided into two sections on the basis of its content: the 'court tales' of chapters 1-6, and the 'apocalyptic visions' of chapters 7-12. However, adding to the confusion is that chapters 2-7 are preserved in Aramaic, while chapters 1 and 8-12 are in Hebrew.

In the late 19th century the Nabonidus Chronicle was published, a document which 'revealed that Nabonidus had been absent from Babylon for several years'.2 Hence, scholars speculated for decades that the story of Nebuchadnezzar's seven-year madness in Daniel 4 was actually based on Nabonidus' absence. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, and among them a document labeled 4Q242, which reads:3

The words of the prayer uttered by Nabunai king of the l[and of Ba]bylon, [the great] king, [when he was afflicted] with an evil ulcer in Teiman by decree of the [Most High God]. I was afflicted [with an evil ulcer] for seven years . . . and an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew from [among the children of the exile of Judah, and he said], 'Recount this in writing to [glory and exalt] the name of the [Most High God'. And I wrote this:] 'I was afflicted with an [evil] ulcer in Teiman [by decree of the Most High God]. For seven years prayed to the gods of silver and gold, [bronze and iron], wood and stone and clay, because [I believed] that they were gods . . .

This granted the hypothesis substantial support: the 'court tales' appear to have originated separately from the apocalyptic chapters of the book; they were stories of folklore about an idealized sage in a foreign court (comparable to Joseph in Genesis, Mordecai in Esther, or Ahikar in extra-biblical literature). These stories of a Jewish sage in Babylon may have floated independently of one another, or they may have been collected together. (The Greek additions to Daniel would also have come from this 'Daniel Cycle' of folklore.)

The book of Daniel is replete with historical inaccuracies regarding the Babylonian and Persian periods, indicating it was written quite some time after those eras. Between this point, and the independent nature of the court tales, the person of 'Daniel' appears to be a literary fabrication, not a historical figure (and hence, not the author of the book). Davies suggests this 'Daniel' character may not have been a well-known figure in Jewish culture before the book was completed,4 and Collins is one scholar to suggest the very name 'Daniel' was chosen for the anonymous Jewish sage of the folklore out of inspiration from the ancient sage 'Danel', mentioned by Ezekiel and Ugaritic texts.5

The apocalyptic visions offer more details to us as to who the author(s) might have been. Chapters 7-12 are almost exclusively focused on Antiochus Epiphanes and the ensuing Maccabean Revolt. (See my answers to two other questions here and here for a fuller exposition on these details.) The concern here is the resolution of the Revolt, the cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem, and the reinstitution of the sacrifices, offerings, and Torah observance. Critical scholars have long noticed that the apocalyptic section's grasp on history during the Maccabean Revolt appears to suddenly disappear a year or two before its conclusion.

Some scholars also go a little further than simply identifying the time period of the author, by also trying to deduce his specific theological or ethical identity. Hill notes:6

Unlike many apocalypticists, Daniel did not foresee a great battle in which the armies of Israel would vanquish their foes. Instead, the victory would be God's alone. In the meantime, believers were to batten down the hatches and weather the storm.

This mindset is thematically found in the court tales: neither Daniel nor his fellow exiles resort to violence against their Babylonian captors; they only endure through their adversities, trusting that God will vindicate them. Going into Daniel 11, Hill continues:7

Almost certainly, the author of this text was among the "wise" teachers to whom these verses [11.33-35] refer. There is no consensus about who helps them ("a little") or what form that assistance takes. Many have interpreted the saying as an early reference to the Maccabees, but that identification is by no means certain.

Davies also locks onto references to these 'wise':8

At the close of the book of Daniel comes a passage of four verses in which a group within Israel, called the 'wise,' are promised an extraordinary deliverance (12.1-4). . . . The reference [in 11.32-35] to a 'little help' and to those who 'join themselves to them with flattery' are taken by virtually every commentator as a disparaging reference to the Maccabean resistance. If this is so (see the following Chapter), the reason is quite obvious: the time of deliverance is the time appointed by God, and the death of the righteous in the meantime is to test and purify them; hence active resistance would be neither theologically appropriate nor politically effective. The advocacy of passive resistance is in harmony with the stories; the heroes are powerless to defend themselves, but in any case their witness rests not on their power to resist but the power of their God to assert his sovereignty. This is the stance of the 'wise' in our passage; their role is not to lead resistance, but to teach and to suffer: they 'make many understand' and they (or some of them) 'fall'.

Coming up to chapter 12, Collins points something out regarding the date-setting in the final verses of the book:9

The heat of persecution also underlies the attempts in Daniel to specify the number of days until the end. Such attempts are rare in the apocalypses. In the case of Daniel, contradictory numbers were allowed to stand side by side (Dan 12:11: 1,290 days; 12:12: 1,335 days). This shows that they were not taken with absolute literalness. The final figure was presumably the result of a revised calculation when the first date passed.

---

The author(s)​

It would be impossible to enumerate and identify every writer who contributed to the book of Daniel. Most of them are anonymous. At the bare minimum of historical possibility we would have two authors: the earlier authors(s) having written the original court tales, and the later author(s) having written the apocalyptic visions and having edited the court tales to bring them into cohesion with the visions. Possibly also a third author, if we do not assume the second author was the one who added the revised calculations in chapter 12.

The actual number of authors, however, is likely more than just two or three. The court tales may have originated independently, with a later author simply unifying them into a collection. Some of the apocalyptic visions may have directly adapted earlier sources before also being unified, such as Daniel 7 being a reshaped story from the Baal mythos. For the sake of simplicity, let's simply look at the final author(s), the one who gave us the (bulk of the) book in its present (Hebrew) form:

• Wrote the book about 166-165 BC, while in Judea.
• Highly valued the Jerusalem temple and all the related commamds in the Torah concerning it. As such, he would have opposed the Hellenization many of his contemporaries had undergone (cf. 1 Maccabees 1.11-15).
• Considered himself among 'the wise', a group which favored a pacifistic approach, at least as regarding foreign occupation of his homeland, because they believed God would directly intervene on their behalf.
• Rejected the violent resistance of the Maccabees, another group of Jews who opposed Hellenization and the foreign occupation of Judea, though at least recognized they were working toward the same goal (hence calling them 'a little help').

---

Footnotes​

1 James E. Smith, Daniel: A Christian Interpretation, 14.

2 John J. Collins, Daniel, 62.

3 Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 329.

4 Philip R. Davies, Daniel, 42.

5 John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, Chapter 3. (Kindle edition.)

6 Craig C. Hill, In God's Time, Chapter 5. (Kindle edition.)

7 Ibid.

8 Davies, 109-110.

9 Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, Chapter 3.

 

[Kiranga]

Tena

Swali lako la kwanza unasema

“Kama Daniel hakuwapo, na mtu aliandika baadaye akijifanya yeye, cha ajabu ni nini kama akipatia matukio yaliyokuwa tayari yametokea?”


kwanza unatakiwa ujue kitabu cha Danieli hakisimamii tu historia ya Babeli, Medo-Persia na Ugiriki.,kama unavyodhani , Kinaendelea kuonyesha mambo yaliyotokea baada ya karne ya kwanza K.K., kama vile kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu mwaka 70 B.K., pamoja na mambo ya mwisho kama ufufuo, hukumu na Ufalme wa Mungu (Danieli 12:1–3).

Hii ni tofauti kubwa na maandiko ya uongo ya Kiyahudi (pseudepigrapha), ambayo mara nyingi yalijikita tu katika historia ya nyuma.

Mfano wako wa mtu kuandika mwaka 1800 akitabiri maisha ya Nyerere unaweza kueleza mambo yaliyopita, lakini hauwezi kueleza kwa usahihi matukio ya karne nyingi baadaye hadi sasa na yajayo., Hivo hoja yako ni mfu ,ndio maana nakushangaa unakwama wapi ...

Kuhusu makosa ya Kihistoria unayosema moja ni “Dario Mmedi” ambaye hajulikani vizuri katika vyanzo vya nje, au mfuatano wa wafalme wa Babeli na Medo-Persia.

Cha ajabu na kilichokuja kuwaumbua hao unawaotegenea , archaeology baadaye.,imekuja kuthibitisha Kwa 100%,

Kwa mfano, kwa karne nyingi Belshaza hakujulikana kabisa katika historia, lakini maandiko ya cuneiform yaliyogunduliwa karne ya 19 yalibainisha kuwa kweli alikuwa regent, mwana wa Nabonidus jambo linalolingana kabisa na Danieli 5.

Kama hujaweza hata kuthibitisha Daniel aliishi hujaweza kuthibitisha lolote kwamba Daniel alitabiri.

 

[hamis77]

Who wrote the Book of Daniel

What does it means to say that "Daniel wrote/Did not write the book of Daniel?" Are we saying: 1. Daniel did not produce the finish product but could have provided the notes 2. Daniel had nothing...

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

Who wrote the Book of Daniel​

What does it means to say that "Daniel wrote/Did not write the book of Daniel?" Are we saying: 1. Daniel did not produce the finish product but could have provided the notes 2. Daniel had nothing at all to do with the production or compilation of of the book?

Traditionally​

The traditional Jewish and Christian identification of the author of the book of Daniel is, of course, Daniel himself. All biographical details about Daniel in the book are taken at face value: he was a young member of the Judean nobility, deported to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in the year 605 BC, who quickly found favor with the Babylonian court for his wisdom, and subsequently became an interpreter of dreams and had prophetic dreams of his own.1

---

Critically​

The answer of critical scholarship is much more complex. The book of Daniel is divided into two sections on the basis of its content: the 'court tales' of chapters 1-6, and the 'apocalyptic visions' of chapters 7-12. However, adding to the confusion is that chapters 2-7 are preserved in Aramaic, while chapters 1 and 8-12 are in Hebrew.

In the late 19th century the Nabonidus Chronicle was published, a document which 'revealed that Nabonidus had been absent from Babylon for several years'.2 Hence, scholars speculated for decades that the story of Nebuchadnezzar's seven-year madness in Daniel 4 was actually based on Nabonidus' absence. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, and among them a document labeled 4Q242, which reads:3


This granted the hypothesis substantial support: the 'court tales' appear to have originated separately from the apocalyptic chapters of the book; they were stories of folklore about an idealized sage in a foreign court (comparable to Joseph in Genesis, Mordecai in Esther, or Ahikar in extra-biblical literature). These stories of a Jewish sage in Babylon may have floated independently of one another, or they may have been collected together. (The Greek additions to Daniel would also have come from this 'Daniel Cycle' of folklore.)

The book of Daniel is replete with historical inaccuracies regarding the Babylonian and Persian periods, indicating it was written quite some time after those eras. Between this point, and the independent nature of the court tales, the person of 'Daniel' appears to be a literary fabrication, not a historical figure (and hence, not the author of the book). Davies suggests this 'Daniel' character may not have been a well-known figure in Jewish culture before the book was completed,4 and Collins is one scholar to suggest the very name 'Daniel' was chosen for the anonymous Jewish sage of the folklore out of inspiration from the ancient sage 'Danel', mentioned by Ezekiel and Ugaritic texts.5

The apocalyptic visions offer more details to us as to who the author(s) might have been. Chapters 7-12 are almost exclusively focused on Antiochus Epiphanes and the ensuing Maccabean Revolt. (See my answers to two other questions here and here for a fuller exposition on these details.) The concern here is the resolution of the Revolt, the cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem, and the reinstitution of the sacrifices, offerings, and Torah observance. Critical scholars have long noticed that the apocalyptic section's grasp on history during the Maccabean Revolt appears to suddenly disappear a year or two before its conclusion.

Some scholars also go a little further than simply identifying the time period of the author, by also trying to deduce his specific theological or ethical identity. Hill notes:6


This mindset is thematically found in the court tales: neither Daniel nor his fellow exiles resort to violence against their Babylonian captors; they only endure through their adversities, trusting that God will vindicate them. Going into Daniel 11, Hill continues:7


Davies also locks onto references to these 'wise':8


Coming up to chapter 12, Collins points something out regarding the date-setting in the final verses of the book:9

---

The author(s)​

It would be impossible to enumerate and identify every writer who contributed to the book of Daniel. Most of them are anonymous. At the bare minimum of historical possibility we would have two authors: the earlier authors(s) having written the original court tales, and the later author(s) having written the apocalyptic visions and having edited the court tales to bring them into cohesion with the visions. Possibly also a third author, if we do not assume the second author was the one who added the revised calculations in chapter 12.

The actual number of authors, however, is likely more than just two or three. The court tales may have originated independently, with a later author simply unifying them into a collection. Some of the apocalyptic visions may have directly adapted earlier sources before also being unified, such as Daniel 7 being a reshaped story from the Baal mythos. For the sake of simplicity, let's simply look at the final author(s), the one who gave us the (bulk of the) book in its present (Hebrew) form:

• • Wrote the book about 166-165 BC, while in Judea.
  • Highly valued the Jerusalem temple and all the related commamds in the Torah concerning it. As such, he would have opposed the Hellenization many of his contemporaries had undergone (cf. 1 Maccabees 1.11-15).
  • Considered himself among 'the wise', a group which favored a pacifistic approach, at least as regarding foreign occupation of his homeland, because they believed God would directly intervene on their behalf.
  • Rejected the violent resistance of the Maccabees, another group of Jews who opposed Hellenization and the foreign occupation of Judea, though at least recognized they were working toward the same goal (hence calling them 'a little help').

---

Footnotes​

1 James E. Smith, Daniel: A Christian Interpretation, 14.

2 John J. Collins, Daniel, 62.

3 Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 329.

4 Philip R. Davies, Daniel, 42.

5 John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, Chapter 3. (Kindle edition.)

6 Craig C. Hill, In God's Time, Chapter 5. (Kindle edition.)

7 Ibid.

8 Davies, 109-110.

9 Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, Chapter 3.

Kukopi kitabu na kupachika hapa ,sio kwamba ndio utahepa hoja na maswali ninayokuuliza

Kwanza, hoja kwamba sura 1–6 ni hadithi za korti zinazotokana na folklore hazina msingi wa kuthibitishwa kihistoria.,Huyo jamaa yako ni anaaandika mawazo yake binafsi,

Tuna ushahidi wa archaeological unaoonyesha kwamba nafasi za kifalme zilizotajwa, kama “Master of the Eunuchs” (Rab-Saris Clay Tablet) na Belshazzar kuwa regent mwana wa Nabonidus, zipo kweli na zilikuwa halisi.

Je, inawezekana mtu aliyeishi karne ya 2 K.K. aje andike kwa usahihi mpangilio wa idadi ya wafalme, majina, nafasi, na desturi za kifalme, bila kuwa shahidi? Ni bahati sana, haiwezekani.

Pili, kuzungumzia ulinganifu kati ya Danieli na Cyrus Cylinder au Jehoiachin’s Rations Tablet, ni ajabu sana kwamba mwandishi wa karne ya 2 K.K. angeweza kupata taarifa zote hizi na kuzitumia kikamilifu, kwa usahihi wa kipekee, bila kuwa na historia ya kwanza au taarifa za asili.

Hii inaonyesha kuwa mtu kama Danieli alikuwa shahidi wa matukio hayo, au angalau alikuwa ndani ya mfumo wa kifalme wa kwanza.

Tatu, Dead Sea Scrolls zimesalia kutoka karne ya 2 K.K. zinathibitisha kitabu cha Danieli kilikuwa kikitambulika na kuhesabiwa kama unabii.

Hoja ya muandishi wako huyo unayemtumia kwamba kitabu kilitumika tu kama folklore haiwezi kufafanua jinsi maono ya Danieli kuhusu kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu 70 A.D. yalitambulika kabla ya tukio hilo kutokea. , labda wewe utusaidie


Nne, hoja ya kihistoria kwamba hakuna ushahidi wa Danieli kama mtu haiwezi kuhalalisha kusema Danieli hakuwa halisi.

Vyanzo vya Babeli vilivyopatikana ni vichache sana na havikuorodhesha kila mtu aliyefanya kazi ikulu.

Hii ni kawaida. Lakini kutokana na usahihi wa maelezo ya kifalme, nafasi aliyokuwa nayo, na ulinganifu wa matukio yaliyotokea, inaonyesha kwa nguvu kwamba Danieli alikuwapo, sio kielelezo cha hadithi tu.,

Tano, hoja kwamba sura za apocalyptic ziliandikwa kuhusiana na Antiochus Epiphanes na mapinduzi ya Maccabean haiwezi kuondoa ukweli wa Danieli kama mhusika wa kihistoria.

Unaona hapa mchanganyiko wa historia halisi (Babeli, Medo-Persia, Cyrus) na unabii wa baadaye (kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu, ufufuo, hukumu ya mwisho). Hii haiwezi kufanywa kwa bahati au uandishi wa baadaye peke yake., Labda unitajie mtu aliyewahi kufanya kitu kama hicho ,Nasubiri


Je, inawezekana kwa mwandishi wa karne ya 2 K.K. andike kwa usahihi majina, nafasi na mpangilio wa wafalme wa Babeli na Medo-Persia, bila kuwa shahidi?

Je, Dead Sea Scrolls zenye Danieli zilipatikana karne kabla ya 2 K.K. zinathibitisha nini kuhusu uwepo wa mhusika wa kweli?

Je, nan anaweza kutabiri unabii unaotimia matukio ya baadaye kama kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu mwaka 70 A.D.? Hii Forgery basi ni ya kiwango gani

Je, usahihi wa kihistoria wa Danieli katika muktadha wa kifalme haoneshi uwepo wake kama mtu halisi?

 

[finyango]

Naomba nijazie Tena , au nikazie, na hii ndio raha ya biblia , historia na AKIOLOJIA ,

Unacheza kama Pele tu

Kitabu cha Daniel kimeandikwa kwa Kiebrania na Kiaramu cha kale sana , Lugha hiyo haifanani kabisa na ile ya karne ya 2 K.K., bali ni ya karne za nyuma zaidi (karibu na nyakati za Babeli). ,Na ndio kipindi Daniel aliishi kule Babeli walivyochukuliwa utumwani na Nebukadneza.

Hii inapingana na madai kwamba kiliandikwa karne ya 2 K.K.

Wanahistoria waliokinzana na hiyo nadharia, kama R.H. Pfeiffer na wengine, walikiri kuwa kuna maneno ya kale mno ambayo hayangeweza kuandikwa karne ya 2 K.K.
View attachment 3442712

Pia Ushahidi wa Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls), huu ndio wanahistoria wengi, atheists wengi wamekiri Biblia sio kitabu cha kawaida kama walivyodhani ,

Nakala za Kitabu cha Daniel zimepatikana Qumran, zikiwa zimeandikwa kabla ya karne ya 2 K.K. (karibu karne ya 3 K.K.).

Hii inathibitisha kitabu kilikuwepo mapema kuliko madai ya wasomi wa kisasa.,

Ikiwa kitabu kingeandikwa karne ya 2 K.K., kingewezaje kuwa tayari sehemu ya maandiko matakatifu ya Wayahudi mapema hivyo?

Maana ndani ya unabii wa Daniel Kuna nabii kama hizi 👇👇

Kufa kwa Masihi (Yesu Kristo)

Danieli 9:26 — “Baada ya majuma sitini na mbili, Masihi atakatiliwa mbali, wala si kwa ajili yake mwenyewe…”

Utimizaji👇👇

Yesu Kristo alisulubiwa Yerusalemu takribani mwaka 30-33 AD (wengine husema 30 AD au 33 AD).

🔥🔥 Huu unabii ulikuwa sehemu ya majuma 70 ya Danieli ambapo alitabiri kuja kwa Masihi na kifo chake.

View attachment 3442716

Ndio maana wasomi wa biblia, historia wakisikia Habari za muhamad kusema Yesu hakufa wanaishia kucheka tu

Chukizo la Uharibifu (Kuvunjwa kwa Hekalu la Yerusalemu)

Danieli 9:27 na Danieli 11:31 — “Nao wataweka chukizo la uharibifu.”

Utimizaji
👇👇👇
Wakati wa Warumi, Tito (mwana wa Kaisari Vespasian) aliharibu Hekalu la Yerusalemu mwaka 70 AD.

Hekalu liliteketezwa kabisa na Wayahudi kufukuzwa, unabii huu unakubaliana pia na maneno ya Yesu (Mathayo 24:15).
View attachment 3442717


Kuibuka kwa Milki ya Uajemi na Kuuangusha kwa Babeli

Danieli 5:28 na Danieli 8:20 — “Medi na Uajemi.”

Utimizaji: Mfalme Koreshi (Cyrus) wa Uajemi aliangusha Babiloni mwaka 539 BC.

Daniel alitabiri kwamba baada ya Babiloni, Uajemi ingekuwa mfululizo wa falme zinazotawala dunia ya kale.

View attachment 3442722

Nakala za Kitabu cha Daniel zimepatikana Qumran, zikiwa zimeandikwa kabla ya karne ya 2 K.K. (karibu karne ya 3 K.K.).
Basi sijaelewa hii kwa hiyo unakubali kuwa kitabu kimeandikwa baada ya alexander?

 

[hamis77]

Nakala za Kitabu cha Daniel zimepatikana Qumran, zikiwa zimeandikwa kabla ya karne ya 2 K.K. (karibu karne ya 3 K.K.).
Basi sijaelewa hii kwa hiyo unakubali kuwa kitabu kimeandikwa baada ya alexander?

Kabla ya Yesu ,miaka ilikuwa inarudi nyuma

Karne ya 3 K.K. (3rd century BCE) ni zamani zaidi kuliko karne ya 2 K.K. (2nd century BCE).

Zaman walikuwa wanahesabu kuanzia mwaka 2000 wanarudi kwa kupunguza Hadi wafike mwaka 0, wanaanza Tena hivo hivo,

Hadi anakuja Yesu, ndio miaka ikaanza kwenye 0 kupanda juu Hadi Leo tupo 2025

Karne ya 3 K.K. (3rd century BCE) ni miaka ya 200-301 BCE. Mfano mwaka 250 BCE unakuwa katikati ya karne ya 3 K.K.

Karne ya 2 K.K. (2nd century BCE) ni miaka ya 100-201 BCE. Mfano mwaka 150 BCE unakuwa katikati ya karne ya 2 K.K.


Kwa hivyo, karne ya 3 K.K. ni zamani zaidi kuliko karne ya 2 K.K..

Hivyo, nakala za Kitabu cha Daniel zilizopatikana Qumran (karne ya 2 K.K.) ni kopi za maandiko ya awali yaliyoandikwa zamani zaidi, kabla ya Alexander (323 BCE),

 

[Kiranga]

Kukopi kitabu na kupachika hapa ,sio kwamba ndio utahepa hoja na maswali ninayokuuliza

Kwanza, hoja kwamba sura 1–6 ni hadithi za korti zinazotokana na folklore hazina msingi wa kuthibitishwa kihistoria.,Huyo jamaa yako ni anaaandika mawazo yake binafsi,

Tuna ushahidi wa archaeological unaoonyesha kwamba nafasi za kifalme zilizotajwa, kama “Master of the Eunuchs” (Rab-Saris Clay Tablet) na Belshazzar kuwa regent mwana wa Nabonidus, zipo kweli na zilikuwa halisi.

Je, inawezekana mtu aliyeishi karne ya 2 K.K. aje andike kwa usahihi mpangilio wa idadi ya wafalme, majina, nafasi, na desturi za kifalme, bila kuwa shahidi? Ni bahati sana, haiwezekani.

Pili, kuzungumzia ulinganifu kati ya Danieli na Cyrus Cylinder au Jehoiachin’s Rations Tablet, ni ajabu sana kwamba mwandishi wa karne ya 2 K.K. angeweza kupata taarifa zote hizi na kuzitumia kikamilifu, kwa usahihi wa kipekee, bila kuwa na historia ya kwanza au taarifa za asili.

Hii inaonyesha kuwa mtu kama Danieli alikuwa shahidi wa matukio hayo, au angalau alikuwa ndani ya mfumo wa kifalme wa kwanza.

Tatu, Dead Sea Scrolls zimesalia kutoka karne ya 2 K.K. zinathibitisha kitabu cha Danieli kilikuwa kikitambulika na kuhesabiwa kama unabii.

Hoja ya muandishi wako huyo unayemtumia kwamba kitabu kilitumika tu kama folklore haiwezi kufafanua jinsi maono ya Danieli kuhusu kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu 70 A.D. yalitambulika kabla ya tukio hilo kutokea. , labda wewe utusaidie


Nne, hoja ya kihistoria kwamba hakuna ushahidi wa Danieli kama mtu haiwezi kuhalalisha kusema Danieli hakuwa halisi.

Vyanzo vya Babeli vilivyopatikana ni vichache sana na havikuorodhesha kila mtu aliyefanya kazi ikulu.

Hii ni kawaida. Lakini kutokana na usahihi wa maelezo ya kifalme, nafasi aliyokuwa nayo, na ulinganifu wa matukio yaliyotokea, inaonyesha kwa nguvu kwamba Danieli alikuwapo, sio kielelezo cha hadithi tu.,

Tano, hoja kwamba sura za apocalyptic ziliandikwa kuhusiana na Antiochus Epiphanes na mapinduzi ya Maccabean haiwezi kuondoa ukweli wa Danieli kama mhusika wa kihistoria.

Unaona hapa mchanganyiko wa historia halisi (Babeli, Medo-Persia, Cyrus) na unabii wa baadaye (kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu, ufufuo, hukumu ya mwisho). Hii haiwezi kufanywa kwa bahati au uandishi wa baadaye peke yake., Labda unitajie mtu aliyewahi kufanya kitu kama hicho ,Nasubiri


Je, inawezekana kwa mwandishi wa karne ya 2 K.K. andike kwa usahihi majina, nafasi na mpangilio wa wafalme wa Babeli na Medo-Persia, bila kuwa shahidi?

Je, Dead Sea Scrolls zenye Danieli zilipatikana karne kabla ya 2 K.K. zinathibitisha nini kuhusu uwepo wa mhusika wa kweli?

Je, nan anaweza kutabiri unabii unaotimia matukio ya baadaye kama kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu mwaka 70 A.D.? Hii Forgery basi ni ya kiwango gani

Je, usahihi wa kihistoria wa Danieli katika muktadha wa kifalme haoneshi uwepo wake kama mtu halisi?

Wewe unayekopi Biblia na kuiweka hapa unaniambia mimi kukopi kitabu na kuweka hapa ni kukwepa hoja?

Umesoma hoja na kuzielewa?

Unaweza kujibu hoja kwa hoja?

Unaweza kuanza kwa kuweka uthibitisho wa nje ya Biblia kwamba Daniel alikuwapo, aliishi, si mtu wa kutungwa katika hadithi tu?

Kama huwezi kuthibitisha Daniel alikuwapo, maswali yako mengine yote ni non sequitur logical fallacy tu.

 

[hamis77]

Wewe unayekopi Biblia na kuiweka hapa unaniambia mimi kukopi kitabu na kuweka hapa ni kukwepa hoja?

Umesoma hoja na kuzielewa?

Unaweza kujibu hoja kwa hoja?

Unaweza kuanza kwa kuweka uthibitisho wa nje ya Biblia kwamba Daniel alikuwapo, aliishi, si mtu wa kutungwa katika hadithi tu?

Kama huwezi kuthibitisha Daniel alikuwapo, maswali yako mengine yote ni non sequitur logical fallacy tu.

Kopi basi lakini uweze kutetea maswali maana unazua sintofahamu, ukihojiwa unaruka kimanga

 

[Kiranga]

Kopi basi lakini uweze kutetea maswali maana unazua sintofahamu, ukihojiwa unaruka kimanga

Swali gani sijaweza kulitetea?

Tatizo unauliza maswali ya non sequitur fallacy ambayo hayatuthibitishii Daniel alikuwapo.

Unauliza maswali ya archeology na list za wafalme ambayo kimsingi hata yakionesha kitabu cha Daniel kiko sawa 100% hayatuambii kwamba kitabu kimeandikwa na Daniel around 600 BCE.

Kwa hiyo maswali yako ni irrelevant katika kuthibitisha kama Daniel alikuwapo au ni muhusika wa hadithi ya kutungwa na watu tu.

Mpaka sasa hujathibitisha Daniel aliishi na si muhusika wa hadithi ya kutungwa tu.

Na najua huwezi kuthibitisha Daniel alikuwapo.

Utarudia maswali yako yale yale irrelevant ambayo hayathibitishi Daniel aliishi around 600 BCE.

Mimi nataka uthibitishe Daniel aliishi around 600 BCE.

Usilete maswali ya kuthibitisha kitabu cha Daniel kinaendana na historia na archaeology, hayo yote hayathibitishi Daniel aliishi na kuandika kitabu cha Daniel around 600 BCE.

Thibitisha Daniel aliishi na kuandika kitabu cha Daniel around 600 BCE, kwa kutumia sources za kihistoria ambazo si Biblia.

 

[hamis77]

Swali gani sijaweza kulitetea?

Tatizo unauliza maswali ya non sequitur fallacy ambayo hayatuthibitishii Daniel alikuwapo.

Unauliza maswali ya archeology na list za wafalme ambayo kimsingi hata yakionesha kitabu cha Daniel kiko sawa 100% hayatuambii kwamba kitabu kimeandikwa na Daniel around 600 BCE.

Kwa hiyo maswali yako ni irrelevant katika kuthibitisha kama Daniel alikuwapo au ni muhusika wa hadithi ya kutungwa na watu tu.

Mpaka sasa hujathibitisha Daniel aliishi na si muhusika wa hadithi ya kutungwa tu.

Na najua huwezi kuthibitisha Daniel alikuwapo.

Utarudia maswali yako yale yale irrelevant ambayo hayathibitishi Daniel aliishi around 600 BCE.

Mimi nataka uthibitishe Daniel aliishi around 600 BCE.

Usilete maswali ya kuthibitisha kitabu cha Daniel kinaendana na historia na archaeology, hayo yote hayathibitishi Daniel aliishi na kuandika kitabu cha Daniel around 600 BCE.

Thibitisha Daniel aliishi na kuandika kitabu cha Daniel around 600 BCE, kwa kutumia sources za kihistoria ambazo si Biblia.

Kwanza, hoja kwamba sura 1–6 ni hadithi za korti zinazotokana na folklore hazina msingi wa kuthibitishwa kihistoria.,Huyo jamaa yako ni anaaandika mawazo yake binafsi,

Tuna ushahidi wa archaeological unaoonyesha kwamba nafasi za kifalme zilizotajwa, kama “Master of the Eunuchs” (Rab-Saris Clay Tablet) na Belshazzar kuwa regent mwana wa Nabonidus, zipo kweli na zilikuwa halisi.

Je, inawezekana mtu aliyeishi karne ya 2 K.K. aje andike kwa usahihi mpangilio wa idadi ya wafalme, majina, nafasi, na desturi za kifalme, bila kuwa shahidi? Ni bahati sana, haiwezekani.

Pili, kuzungumzia ulinganifu kati ya Danieli na Cyrus Cylinder au Jehoiachin’s Rations Tablet, ni ajabu sana kwamba mwandishi wa karne ya 2 K.K. angeweza kupata taarifa zote hizi na kuzitumia kikamilifu, kwa usahihi wa kipekee, bila kuwa na historia ya kwanza au taarifa za asili.

Hii inaonyesha kuwa mtu kama Danieli alikuwa shahidi wa matukio hayo, au angalau alikuwa ndani ya mfumo wa kifalme wa kwanza.

Tatu, Dead Sea Scrolls zimesalia kutoka karne ya 2 K.K. zinathibitisha kitabu cha Danieli kilikuwa kikitambulika na kuhesabiwa kama unabii.

Hoja ya muandishi wako huyo unayemtumia kwamba kitabu kilitumika tu kama folklore haiwezi kufafanua jinsi maono ya Danieli kuhusu kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu 70 A.D. yalitambulika kabla ya tukio hilo kutokea. , labda wewe utusaidie


Nne, hoja ya kihistoria kwamba hakuna ushahidi wa Danieli kama mtu haiwezi kuhalalisha kusema Danieli hakuwa halisi.

Vyanzo vya Babeli vilivyopatikana ni vichache sana na havikuorodhesha kila mtu aliyefanya kazi ikulu.

Hii ni kawaida. Lakini kutokana na usahihi wa maelezo ya kifalme, nafasi aliyokuwa nayo, na ulinganifu wa matukio yaliyotokea, inaonyesha kwa nguvu kwamba Danieli alikuwapo, sio kielelezo cha hadithi tu.,

Tano, hoja kwamba sura za apocalyptic ziliandikwa kuhusiana na Antiochus Epiphanes na mapinduzi ya Maccabean haiwezi kuondoa ukweli wa Danieli kama mhusika wa kihistoria.

Unaona hapa mchanganyiko wa historia halisi (Babeli, Medo-Persia, Cyrus) na unabii wa baadaye (kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu, ufufuo, hukumu ya mwisho). Hii haiwezi kufanywa kwa bahati au uandishi wa baadaye peke yake., Labda unitajie mtu aliyewahi kufanya kitu kama hicho ,Nasubiri


Je, inawezekana kwa mwandishi wa karne ya 2 K.K. andike kwa usahihi majina, nafasi na mpangilio wa wafalme wa Babeli na Medo-Persia, bila kuwa shahidi?

Je, Dead Sea Scrolls zenye Danieli zilipatikana karne kabla ya 2 K.K. zinathibitisha nini kuhusu uwepo wa mhusika wa kweli?

Je, nan anaweza kutabiri unabii unaotimia matukio ya baadaye kama kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu mwaka 70 A.D.? Hii Forgery basi ni ya kiwango gani

Je, usahihi wa kihistoria wa Danieli katika muktadha wa kifalme haoneshi uwepo wake kama mtu halisi?

 

[Kiranga]

Kwanza, hoja kwamba sura 1–6 ni hadithi za korti zinazotokana na folklore hazina msingi wa kuthibitishwa kihistoria.,Huyo jamaa yako ni anaaandika mawazo yake binafsi,

Tuna ushahidi wa archaeological unaoonyesha kwamba nafasi za kifalme zilizotajwa, kama “Master of the Eunuchs” (Rab-Saris Clay Tablet) na Belshazzar kuwa regent mwana wa Nabonidus, zipo kweli na zilikuwa halisi.

Je, inawezekana mtu aliyeishi karne ya 2 K.K. aje andike kwa usahihi mpangilio wa idadi ya wafalme, majina, nafasi, na desturi za kifalme, bila kuwa shahidi? Ni bahati sana, haiwezekani.

Pili, kuzungumzia ulinganifu kati ya Danieli na Cyrus Cylinder au Jehoiachin’s Rations Tablet, ni ajabu sana kwamba mwandishi wa karne ya 2 K.K. angeweza kupata taarifa zote hizi na kuzitumia kikamilifu, kwa usahihi wa kipekee, bila kuwa na historia ya kwanza au taarifa za asili.

Hii inaonyesha kuwa mtu kama Danieli alikuwa shahidi wa matukio hayo, au angalau alikuwa ndani ya mfumo wa kifalme wa kwanza.

Tatu, Dead Sea Scrolls zimesalia kutoka karne ya 2 K.K. zinathibitisha kitabu cha Danieli kilikuwa kikitambulika na kuhesabiwa kama unabii.

Hoja ya muandishi wako huyo unayemtumia kwamba kitabu kilitumika tu kama folklore haiwezi kufafanua jinsi maono ya Danieli kuhusu kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu 70 A.D. yalitambulika kabla ya tukio hilo kutokea. , labda wewe utusaidie


Nne, hoja ya kihistoria kwamba hakuna ushahidi wa Danieli kama mtu haiwezi kuhalalisha kusema Danieli hakuwa halisi.

Vyanzo vya Babeli vilivyopatikana ni vichache sana na havikuorodhesha kila mtu aliyefanya kazi ikulu.

Hii ni kawaida. Lakini kutokana na usahihi wa maelezo ya kifalme, nafasi aliyokuwa nayo, na ulinganifu wa matukio yaliyotokea, inaonyesha kwa nguvu kwamba Danieli alikuwapo, sio kielelezo cha hadithi tu.,

Tano, hoja kwamba sura za apocalyptic ziliandikwa kuhusiana na Antiochus Epiphanes na mapinduzi ya Maccabean haiwezi kuondoa ukweli wa Danieli kama mhusika wa kihistoria.

Unaona hapa mchanganyiko wa historia halisi (Babeli, Medo-Persia, Cyrus) na unabii wa baadaye (kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu, ufufuo, hukumu ya mwisho). Hii haiwezi kufanywa kwa bahati au uandishi wa baadaye peke yake., Labda unitajie mtu aliyewahi kufanya kitu kama hicho ,Nasubiri


Je, inawezekana kwa mwandishi wa karne ya 2 K.K. andike kwa usahihi majina, nafasi na mpangilio wa wafalme wa Babeli na Medo-Persia, bila kuwa shahidi?

Je, Dead Sea Scrolls zenye Danieli zilipatikana karne kabla ya 2 K.K. zinathibitisha nini kuhusu uwepo wa mhusika wa kweli?

Je, nan anaweza kutabiri unabii unaotimia matukio ya baadaye kama kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu mwaka 70 A.D.? Hii Forgery basi ni ya kiwango gani

Je, usahihi wa kihistoria wa Danieli katika muktadha wa kifalme haoneshi uwepo wake kama mtu halisi?

Bado hujathibitisha Daniel aliishi around 600 BCE na kuandika kitabu cha Daniel.

 

[hamis77]

Bado hujathibitisha Daniel aliishi around 600 BCE na kuandika kitabu cha Daniel.

Je, Dead Sea Scrolls zenye Danieli zilipatikana karne kabla ya 2 K.K. zinathibitisha nini kuhusu uwepo wa mhusika wa kweli?

 

[Kiranga]

Je, Dead Sea Scrolls zenye Danieli zilipatikana karne kabla ya 2 K.K. zinathibitisha nini kuhusu uwepo wa mhusika wa kweli?View attachment 3443455

Dead Sea scrolls hazithibitishi Daniel alikuwapo na hazithibitishi aliandika kitabu cha Daniel around 600 BCE.

Bisha.

 

[hamis77]

Dead Sea scrolls hazithibitishi Daniel alikuwapo na hazithibitishi aliandika kitabu cha Daniel around 600 BCE.

Bisha.

Inaonekana kwanza huzijui Dead sea scrolls,

Je, ni kwa njia gani mwandishi wa karne ya 2 K.K. angeweza kuunda unabii wa kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu 70 AD kwa usahihi wa kihistoria?

Je, ni kwa namna gani mtu asingejua historia ya kifalme ya Babeli na Medo-Persia angeweza kuandika nafasi halisi za kifalme, ustarabu , na matukio?

 

[Kiranga]

Inaonekana kwanza huzijui Dead sea scrolls,

View attachment 3443462


Je, ni kwa njia gani mwandishi wa karne ya 2 K.K. angeweza kuunda unabii wa kuanguka kwa Yerusalemu 70 AD kwa usahihi wa kihistoria?

Je, ni kwa namna gani mtu asingejua historia ya kifalme ya Babeli na Medo-Persia angeweza kuandika nafasi halisi za kifalme, ustarabu , na matukio?

Inaonekana hujui kufikiri kimantiki.

Kutabiri kwa usahihi wa kihistoria maana yake ni nini?

Kitabu cha Daniel kina makosa mengi ya kihistoria post #25 imeyaorodhesha hutaki kuyakubali.

Nikisema Marekani itaanguka siku moja halafu ikaanguka nimetabiri kwa usahihi wa kihistoria au nimetumia common sense tu kwamba tawala huwa zinaanguka?

Nikiandika utabiri leo na kusema Marekani itapigana na Vietnam, kitu ambacho kishatokea, nikauweka huu kama utabiri utakaotokea, utasema nimetabiri hapo?

Mgogoro mzima ni kuwa hizo unazosema ni tabiri si tabiri, ni mambo yaliyoandikwa baada ya kutokea.

Tena hizo tabiri unazozisema ziko vague hakuna utabiri unaosema mwaka fulani jambo fulani litatokea sehemu fulani kwa muhusika fulani. Hakuna itabiri huo. Ni longolongo tupu.

Sasa wewe una chain of custody ya Dead Sea scrolls kuonesha kuwa haikuwa edited baada ya mambo kutokea?

Dead Sea scrolls za 200 BCE zinathibitishaje kuwa Daniel alikuwapo an aliandika kitabu cha Danuel around 600 BCE?

 

[hamis77]

Inaonekana hujui kufikiri kimantiki.

Kutabiri kwa usahihi wa kihistoria maana yake ni nini?

Kitabu cha Daniel kina makosa mengi ya kihistoria post #25 imeyaorodhesha hutaki kuyakubali.

Nikisema Marekani itaanguka siku moja halafu ikaanguka nimetabiri kwa usahihi wa kihistoria au nimetumia common sense tu kwamba tawala huwa zinaanguka?

Nikiandika utabiri leo na kusema Marekani itapigana na Vietnam, kitu ambacho kishatokea, nikauweka huu kama utabiri utakaotokea, utasema nimetabiri hapo?

Mgogoro mzima ni kuwa hizo unazosema ni tabiri si tabiri, ni mambo yaliyoandikwa baada ya kutokea.

Tena hizo tabiri unazozisema ziko vague hakuna utabiri unaosema mwaka fulani jambo fulani litatokea sehemu fulani kwa muhusika fulani. Hakuna itabiri huo. Ni longolongo tupu.

Sasa wewe una chain of custody ya Dead Sea scrolls kuonesha kuwa haikuwa edited baada ya mambo kutokea?

Dead Sea scrolls za 200 BCE zinathibitishaje kuwa Daniel alikuwapo an aliandika kitabu cha Danuel around 600 BCE?

Hoja kwamba Dead Sea Scrolls hazithibitishi kuwa Daniel alikuwapo au hakukuwa mwandishi wa karne ya 6 KK ni hoja dhaifu sana, na nashangaa umeishikilia huna uthibitisho wowote,.

Nakala za Qumran (karne ya 3–2 KK) zinathibitisha wazi kuwa kitabu cha Daniel kilijulikana na kiliheshimiwa kama kitabu cha unabii muda mrefu kabla ya karne ya 2 KK, ikimaanisha maandiko haya yalikuwa yameandikwa mapema zaidi ya 2KK uliyoishililia , pia yamehifadhiwa, na yamekuwa sehemu ya imani ya Kiyahudi mapema zaidi.

Hii inapingana kabisa na kudhani kuwa kitabu kilitumika kupanga au kuandika matukio ya mbele kwa kubahatisha , maana maandiko yalikuwa tayari yamefungwa na kuenea katika jamii ya Kiyahudi.

Ni wazi huzijui Dead sea scrolls zilivyo, lugha yake tu ni ya kipindi cha 500BC

Kuna wapingaji kuliko wewe ,walipoenda kuzifanyia research walikiri na kubadilika na kumfuata Kristo ,

Pili, hoja kwamba Dead Sea Scrolls hazina “mlolongo wa uthibitisho” haiwezi kupinga uwepo wa Daniel.
Maandishi haya yanathibitisha ueneaji na umuhimu wa kitabu, na ni vigumu kuona jinsi mwandishi wa karne ya 2 KK angeweza kuunda Aramaic na Kiebrania halisi cha karne ya 6 KK,(580sBC) akieleza majina, nafasi za kifalme, na matukio ya kifalme cha Babeli na Medo-Persia kwa usahihi kama Daniel alivyoeleza.

Ushahidi huu wa kina hauwezi kutengenezwa kwa urahisi kama unavyokazania ,ndio maana nasema wewe huzijui DEAD SEA SCROLLS

Kitabu kinaonyesha alikuwapo mtu aliyeshuhudia matukio haya, na unabii wake kuhusu uharibifu wa Yerusalemu (70 CE) unathibitisha kuwa si hadithi ya baadaye bali maandiko yaliyo halisi, na ni unabii uliothibitishwa kihistoria.

Ikiwa Daniel hakuwapo, ni kwa jinsi gani maandiko ya Qumran yangeweza kuunda Aramaic na Kiebrania halisi cha karne ya 6 KK na kueleza majina na nafasi za kifalme kwa usahihi?

Kabla ya uharibifu wa Yerusalemu mwaka 70 CE, nani angeweza kuandika unabii kuhusu matukio hayo ya baadaye kwa usahihi wa kihistoria?