Talk:Daniel 7

The dream and interpretation illustration not original research
The illustration merely takes the Bible as it is written (NIV) and physically arranges the texts into parallel according to obvious related words, phrases and concepts. This is the very definition of paraphrase. There is nothing new added to the Bible or taken away. This is completely a NPOV.

The synthesis is merely a paraphrase of the Biblical texts. Allenroyboy 18:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A similar paraphrase illustration and table appear in Nebuchadnezzar's statue vision in Daniel 2. Allenroyboy 17:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As with the chapter 8 article, the content of this article needs more citations from scholars, commentators, experts. etc. The current analysis is based on the reflections of a single individual, and as such is POV Tonicthebrown 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What I said concering the paraphrase illustration here about Daniel 8 applies to this page too. Allenroyboy 18:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia Paraphrase page states "'A paraphrase (from the Greek paraphrasis) is a statement or remark explained in other words or another way, so as to simplify or clarify its meaning.'" The paraphrase illustration on this page is ONLY a paraphrase, putting the text in another way physically so that the text itself clarifies its own meaning. Paraphrasing is a long established and well founded technique on Wikipedia.

And, as was said above, the synthesis is merely a recapitulation of the paraphrased illustration. The only POV is that of the text itself. It does not matter whether someone likes what the text itself says or not. Therefore I am removing false assertion of original research. ---Christian Skeptic 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

changed page
concerns about information that was on this page but which has been removed is deleted.

No Serious Biblical Scholar
Believes the 4 Empire are Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece. Only an idiot would not figure out that Media and Persia are always together, the Break up into 4 pieces of the 3rd Beast is clearly the division fo Alexander's Empire after hsi Death.

Most holding the History written after the fact or Preterist view of the Passage just hold that it was obliviously Rome was on the rise by then.

So it is an outright lie to claim a completely Idiotic interpretation of the Passage is the accepted view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased Article
This article is in need of revision. My reasons are as follows:
 * 1) The article is not balanced. The modernist view is given the overwhelming amount of verbage in the comparative part of the article. The other views are given a few sentences, and the other views are widely held.
 * 2) The modernist view was referred to as the "scholarly" view, which diminishes the scholars who hold other views (of which there are many). It is better called a modernist view, a correction that I have made.
 * 3) The objection to the modernist view begins with a defense by a SDA writer, when there are other more respected scholars who are members of more mainstream religious groups who could have been cited. A scholar from Dallas Theological Seminary and a PCA scholar could provide two differing, but still divergent and respected views.
 * 4) The view for the late date for Daniel is weaker than it used to be, and this is not addressed in a reasonable manner. Also, the arguments used to buttress this late date are not universally accepted, unless one holds an anti-supernatural bias that excludes serious consideration of any views that require that Daniel was a prophet.
 * 5) In conclusion, one may be a skeptic or a believer, but an unbalanced article is not informative.--Baxterguy (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Book Analysis: Fraud verses supernatural
I would like to start a discussion my concerns noted under "Biased Article" above.
 * 1) The Modernist (previously called "Scholarly") view of Daniel essentially believes it was a forgery written after the events described took place. There are multiple other views held by persons who believe the book of Daniel is from the era when Daniel was in exile. However, the forgery/fraud opinion is the primary opinion discussed in this article, despite the fact that one can find scholars in all camps.


 * 2) If this were an article on the Koran, would anyone accept structuring the article as follows: 1) Excluding the introduction, conclusion and general discription of the Koran's content, set aside 50% to 75% of the remaining space for those who hold the Koran to be a fraud, along with a large "rebuttal section" of the "fraud" theory by referencing a non-mainstream religious group?; 2) Give 1-3 sentences each for Sunni, Shia'h and Sufi beliefs about the Koran?
 * No one would do this, and if they did, the page would be edited by Muslims (and even some were not sympathetic to Islam) to give a reasonable overview of each belief. When one belief is given overwhelming space in an article, less informed individuals assume that is the dominant belief in the world. When the rebuttal is, with all due respect to the SDA, by a non-mainstream group, the rebuttal is viewed less credibly than it would be otherwise. But in this article, a group holding to an essentially heretical view of Daniel (it's a forgery, fraud, whatever nice word you want to use) is the primary focus. NOTE: I mean no offense to Muslims (and am not implying anything negative about the Koran), but I wanted to use an example that was outside Christianity.


 * 3) An even presentation of the pros and cons of each view would better present readers with the opportunity to see the strengths and weaknesses of each. Of course, if one holds the view that there is no such thing as a prophetic or anything supernatural - a view closely associated with the modernist view - then an article that minimizes a discription of anything but "Daniel is an 'after the fact' fraud" makes sense. But that is not informative to the average reader.


 * 4) One more comment: In the 19th Century, there was a view among liberal European scholars (i.e., Tubingen school) that the cities in the Book of Acts were largely myth - after all, they had not been discovered by "cutting edge 19th Century archaeology". William Ramsay was forced to change his opinion based on his research in the Ottoman Empire. If there was a wiki article in that era and discussions of the cities of Acts focused on them being myth and minimizing other views - we would look back on that era of "scholarship" as little more than arrogant intellectuals with an anti-supernatural bias.  There is always a place for evenhanded presentation of views.--Baxterguy (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you....  Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, the existence of some Ancient cities is not a supernatural claim. Second, post-Enlightenment historians only work with methodological naturalism. So, if we're speaking about historical facts and not about theological claims, the supernatural is not allowed. Historians simply do not allow the supernatural causation to play any role in history. Not in WW2, not in WW1, not in Antiquity. If historians could prove paranormal claims, then you should expect peer-reviewed history articles like "Have leprechauns dictated the Book of Isaiah? An alternative theory for the claim that angels have dictated the Book of Isaiah." "Historians have no access to God" is a quote from Bart Ehrman, when he explained why historians cannot prove that God helped the Protestants fight the Catholics. He said that only theologians could claim such, since it is a theological claim, not a historical one (unless one is a Catholic theologian...). The problem is that the traditional view frames the problem in terms which are historically impossible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't theology's main job to develop nonsensical interpretations of the world, based on myths and figments of the imagination? History tends to require some things which theology lacks: genuine research, and rational thinking. Dimadick (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologetic work
Should apologetic interpretations be included in articles like this? If so, should all denominations' views be included? I've noticed in articles about Judeo-Christian scriptures, some Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses like to add a large section quoting some apologist, usually without listing any academic qualifications. This despite the fact that they represent .7% and .3% of Christianity respectively. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (with other smaller traditional Eastern churches) represent over 70% of Christianity. It seems to make more sense to have only a few sections on traditional religious interpretations.

1. A traditional Jewish section (with Conservative, Reform subsections)

2. A traditional Christian section (with a Protestant subsection)

If the article devotes an entire section to a view to which less than 1% of a demographic group adheres, any sense of context and balance gets lost. Wikipedia is not an apologetic site. There ought to be some objectivity, correct?


 * The reason why there was a Protestant Reformation, with it's massive impact on the history of the world, was because of their Historicist interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation which fingered the Catholic church as the little horn, Antichrist. Besides Salvation by faith through grace, historicist interpretation by Luther was the driving force behind his protestation.  You name any Protestant reformer and he was a historicist.  However, beginning about the mid-19th century most protestant churches abandoned their historicist interpretation in favor of Dispensationalism which is a curious blending of the Catholic Counter reformation's mutually exclusive Preterism and Futurism interpretations.  As I understand it, SDAs and JWs are the only churches which still hold to the historicist interpretation, which was so pivotal in the history of the church for nearly 400 years.   For that reason alone the historicist interpretation ought to be represented in the article.  If someone wants to add a traditional Catholic interpretation and the new Dispensationalism, they are free to do so.  You appear to be functioning under the delusion that history can be rewritten by the those with the largest numbers or the most power. Allenroyboy (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There was seven kings then a battle of three prior to the establishing of Empire.
I apologize as I know you are supposed to support with facts as opposed to discussion, but is it just me or does nobody realize there was seven kings between the forming of Rome in 752bc up until 509bc. At this point Rome was turned into a Republic and through the Republic came three main rulers. Caesar, Pompey & Crassus. They rivals for control and formed a treaty called the (first) Triumvirates in 53bc. After Crassus died both Caesar & Pompey went to war where Pompey after loosing to Caesar was eventually assassinated in Egypt 48bc. Caesar was a marvelous general and took many new lands into the control Rome whilst it was still not an Empire. It was through Caesar that the republic made way to the first Roman Emperor and Rome became officially an Empire. It was through the reign of Caesars that followed that the church was persecuted and the Catholic church was formed.

Apologizes for adding this but I am confused how to me it seems so obvious Tsigano (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition to this after Julius Caesar's death the kingdom fell into civil war between four people. Augustus (the adopted son of Julius Caesar), Mark Antony, Brutus & Cassius. Both Brutus & Cassius were united and stood on one side of the civil war supported by the Pathians to the east. Then there was Augustus & Mark Antony on the other. Augustus crushed Brutus & Cassius. He then went on the beat Mark Antony who had set up in Egypt and the east of the Empire. Augustus recieved the title as the first Emperor of Rome.

He was even granted the title of Divi filius meaning the 'son of God'. His line went on to be the many Emperors / Caesars of Rome. Tsigano (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * if you want to add this to the article you need a reliable source which spells it out. What you have done here is apparently original research (OR).  While perhaps interesting, OR is not usable on wikipedia.  Allenroyboy (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

sorry. I realize that. Apologies. It just seems so obvious. Type "Kings of Rome" on Wikipedia and see listed the seven kings of Rome (10 horns minus three that were crushed by the little horn = 7). After the seven king Rome became a republic hence there is no kings during that time. Then type in "Second Triumvirate" to see that the republic was over and the kingdom became a battle for rule. Then see how Augustus who I believe was the youngest ever in Roman politics (little horn) crushed the three contending for control. I also understand that under Augustus, Rome was considered a Republic even though Augustus was the first official Emperor and he was considered the mightiest person on Earth and he was even regarded and given the title as the "son of god". here is a film clip of him someone has made on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgbbPYE-Ics Ok. No more said...... sorry. Tsigano (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

 * Denied Jasonasosa (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

recent edit
I think the recent edits by Jason are ok. But for the move of the appendix. :) Johnjonesjr (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OMG... I know exactly what to do... I don't know why I didn't think about this before.... I will make a [show] / [hide] feature! That way we can have the tables back and everyone is happy! Jasonasosa (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That works... :)  Johnjonesjr (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope to have something by tomorrow if possible. Jasonasosa (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Collapsible Appendix table now installed! Jasonasosa (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Froom table
I have tagged the appendix as possibly nonfree and from an unreliable source. If this is entirely from Froom, then it is probably a copyright violation. If not, then it is original synthesis. The "implies" bothers me - is this just Froom's opinion? I have not read Froom's book, but I'd be surprised if there was more than bare assertion, for example, that George Downham implies a Babylon-Media/Persia-Greece-Rome reading. StAnselm (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed is that the start of the table lists a variety of interpretations by early Jews and Christians, but as it goes on, the interpretations become more and more similar,for example after the reformation era, it lists mostly Protestants who viewed the little horn as the Papacy. The table then ends at the beginning of the Seventh Day Adventist church, which Froom happens to be a member of. Instead of an unbiased list of interpretations by biblical commentators from the 1st to 19th centuries, it seems like Froom was showing the development of the particular interpretation the he himself holds.


 * @Grandthefttoaster: Froom discusses his sources, and how he acquired them, in his 4 volume book Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers.  His sources are exhaustive for the time period from the 1st to the 19th centuries.  The first volume of the set can be found here: http://docs.adventistarchives.org//doc_info.asp?q=doc_info.asp&DocID=42770
 * @ST: Froom has long been recognized as a reliable source.  See Le_Roy_Froom.  You can find the original tables by following the links found in the Sources of the article.  The appendix is in essence a quote from Froom in table format.  In the books Froom explains and shows how he uses the term "implies" in the table.  RoyBurtonson (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There are major, contrasting views of the Daniel 7 Vision that are not represented in this article
It would be best, to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a forum that is dominated by the POV of the contributor when dealing with topics such as this for which there are several well-studied, plausible alternatives, for contributors to list scholarly resources that will allow visitors to survey the various bonafide viewpoints.

I am a student, not a scholar, so I would refrain from trying to post the view on Daniel 7 I favor. I would point others to Bible scholars who have earned a measure of respect by having published in seminary journals; and who are good representatives of their respective points of view. In that spirit, I would offer these:

E.J. Young, "Daniel" (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth Trust, 1949) has written on this topic a work that is considered a classic among Presbyterian/Reformed scholars.

John Goldingay, a contemporary scholar who is now at Fuller Theological seminary in Pasadena, California, is a heavy-hitter whose views on Daniel 7 do not match my own. However, the article's failure to mention him, as well as the views of any of the church fathers, or any of the most thorough "dispensationalist" Old Testament commentators such as Walvoord; and others, raise questions; as does the weight given to the view (in reality, a marginal view among evangelical Protestants) that any of the ten horns of the fourth beast relate to the Roman Catholic pope. This is an example of a faddish view that was in vogue during the 16th and 17th centuries when in retrospect, both Protestant and Catholic apologists found all kinds of creative ways to throw digs at each other.

None of this is to say that the writers of this article have acted out of a desire to be biased or misleading, but the problem is that we all know only what we know, right? Academicians make it their practice to curate the material and present a representative survey of the most current and influential viewpoints in their books. If we want Wikipedia to fulfill that role, it will take an unusual amount of cooperation and forebearance with one another.

My suggestion would be (and I have a term paper & final exam due today so I must confine my contribution to Young, Goldingay and Walvoord) to round out the scholarship, purge the article of fringe viewpoints, and provide lots of links to a variety of scholarly resources so that the article becomes a launching pad for further investigation and not just a destination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave.todaro1 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Johnjonesjr blocked
As a pov sockpuppet of Allenroyboy, see Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Major scholarly POV
There are nearly 1.5 billion Sunni Muslims in the world and growing rapidly all throughout the western world. There are an additional 2 billion people of different christian denominations that also dont hold the fourth beast to be Greece; simply because, Jesus refers to the abomination of desolation and the Son of Man spoken of by Daniel the prophet. If the 3.5 billion of Abrahams descendants believe the fourth beast to be Rome then let it be at the expense of some few millions of Abrahams other descendents. The main article mentions a little bit about Islam perhaps being the fourth beast but does not mention at all what Muslims think about the prophecy.

Muslim opinions find that the fourth beast is Rome after Jesus leaves; a dark chapter of history conveniently summed up by Christian historians as the ten persecutions (the ten horns of the beast). The Roman bull ravages the believers across the world under these ten emporers that despise monotheism and wish to extinguish the light of God. Then comes the eleventh horn, at the demise of three. Constantine came to power during a civil war and defeated three factions to win the seat of power, like three horns giving way to one. In the prophecy, the eleventh horn has human eyes and a human mouth, speaking elegently it tries to change the law and the times. Constantine, a pagan, convenes the council of Nicea to establish monotheist doctrine for them in favor of one faction that was following the Pauline-trinitarian creed. Though there is no eleventh persecutaion according to the descendents of Pauls creed, constantine certainly waged war against the Apostolic-Arian-Unitarian creed. This creed is in essence Muslim; viewing christ as a man of miracles and prophet, but not God. After nearly time, time and half a time after Jesus, the Son of Man (not God) came like lightening conquering east and west. Muhammad(saw) was a planetary force that destroyed the roman empire, restored order to the world, ended the dark ages, brought the Shlama, the Shariah (kingdom of God), spoke the truth of Jesus after his falsification (john) and spoke the words of God (deuteronamy). Though jesus is a messiah to the jews through the covenant with David, Mohammad is the messiah for the world prommised Abraham and his "only" first-born son Ishmael; father of the Arabs. Though the scriptures have been manhandled, seek ye the truth and the truth shall set you free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.95.220 (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ERA
Per this edit, the usage of the article was established as. Kindly maintain it consistently, pending a new consensus to the contrary. (There might be some overarching style policy w/r/t articles on parts of the Hebrew Scriptures. If so, just link through to it.) — Llywelyn II   01:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The fourth beast:
This need to be changed. Rome is the forth beast not Greece. Greece is the third beast. please this information is very wrong. Minister Monday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36DF:1900:20B7:A179:7185:D98F (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ellen White Quote Removed
I removed the following long quote from the "Adventist" section. ''Ellen White writes, His word has given warning of the impending danger; let this be unheeded, and the Protestant world will learn what the purposes of Rome really are, only when it is too late to escape the snare. She is silently growing into power. Her doctrines are exerting their influence in legislative halls, in the churches, and in the hearts of men. She is piling up her lofty and massive structures in the secret recesses of which her former persecutions will be repeated. Stealthily and unsuspectedly she is strengthening her forces to further her own ends when the time shall come for her to strike. All that she desires is vantage ground, and this is already being given her. We shall soon see and shall feel what the purpose of the Roman element is. Whoever shall believe and obey the word of God will thereby incur reproach and persecution.[30]'' The quote takes up quite a bit of space, and has no direct reference to Daniel 7 or the book of Daniel. It simply discusses White's distrust of the Roman Catholic Church in general. Given that the Adventist section already dominates a great deal of space in this article, it seemed like a no-brainer to cut it. Alephb (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: I'll also be trimming down some of the redundancies and other excesses of the Adventist section, while leaving the basic ideas intact. Alephb (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent Edit About Agnostics
The following quote was part of this article: "It is generally accepted that the Book of Daniel originated as a collection of folktales among the Jewish community in Babylon and Mesopotamia in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods (5th to 3rd centuries bc), expanded by the visions of chapters 7-12 in the Maccabean era (mid-2nd century bc).[1] Modern scholarship agrees that Daniel is a legendary figure.[9]" It contains references to a book by John Collins called Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, pages 28, 29, and 34-35.

While making no change to the works cited, user Dirtlover883 changed both sentences, so that the whole now reads, "It is generally accepted among agnostics that the Book of Daniel originated as a collection of folktales among the Jewish community in Babylon and Mesopotamia in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods (5th to 3rd centuries bc), expanded by the visions of chapters 7-12 in the Maccabeanera (mid-2nd century bc).[1] Many modern scholars hold that Daniel is a legendary figure.[9]" These changes cannot be justified on the basis of the reference cited.

In the first case, I've read the pages cited in Collins, and they contain no wording about "agnostics" being the only ones who hold to the modern view about Daniel. Collins contains quotes like this, from page 29, “The diachronic development of the book is also at issue in the problem of the two languages. The most plausible explanation is that an original collection of Aramaic stories was expanded by the addition of the Hebrew revelations in chs. 8-12. This much has been generally accepted, despite H. H. Rowley’s famous defense of the unity of the whole book.” Also, from page 28, 28 — “By contrast, modern scholarship has held that Daniel is a legendary figure, that the stories in chs. 1-6 are no older than the Hellenistic period, and that the revelations in chs. 7-12 were written in the Maccabean period when the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes were persecuting the Jews."

That is, Collins speaks of a consensus view in modern critical scholarship for the claims of both sentences. Downgrading the first sentence to merely an agnostic position, and the second sentence to only "many scholars" as opposed to being a consensus view, are both unwarranted. In particular, the unsourced speculation about the personal religious beliefs behind the consensus of modern scholarship is troubling. So I'll be reverting those edits given that they are unsupported by references and disagree with the references that are currently used.Alephb (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070531225517/http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp to http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable source
Sources like Tektonics should be removed on the spot, see WP:SPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ten Seleucid kings?
Under the section Imagery and symbolism it states: The ten horns that appear on the beast stand for the ten Seleucid kings between Seleucus I, the founder of the kingdom, and Antiochus Epiphanes. However, according to the page List of Seleucid rulers there was only eight kings between Seleucus I Nicator and Antiochus IV Epiphanes. There is an apparent discrepancy which I would appreciate being fixed by editing one or both articles. Tellurium128 (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Levine says "Ten horns is a round number representing the kings of the Seleucid empire...". So, yeah, it's really 8, but rounded to 10. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Academic consensus
For how we know the academic consensus see WP:RS/AC. I have reverted WP:FRINGE WP:Editorializing based upon unreliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the 'predictions' prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)"

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Mainstream Bible scholarship simply does not mix with fideist pseudohistory. That's why the edits were reverted, see WP:FRINGE. E.g. that Jesus would be the Son of God is not a shared assumption, it is strictly a Christian POV, and historians only work with shared assumptions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This article claims as fact statements that are in some cases theoretical (that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC), and in other cases clearly false (that this is generally accepted). Mainstream Bible scholarship as practiced in mainstream theological institutions is hardly fringe theory, nor pseudohistory.


 * Katolophyromai's argument is flawed in at least two key respects: (a) You can't be so certain the prophecies are "catastrophically wrong" unless you are sure you understand their meaning, which would be sheer hubris. (b) Even if precisely one of the prophecies were correct, that hardly proves they were written after the fulfillment of that one prophecy. Surely not all prophecies turn out to be wrong?


 * Tgeorgescu, WP:RS/AC proves nothing, unless you can prove that there are not hundreds of Biblical scholars who disagree with your position; which you can't, because there are. Wikipedia policy is that articles should be written with a neutral POV. Why is this so difficult to accept?


 * I'm going to redo the edits that you reverted. Please do not revert them again. If you have reliable sources that you can cite, e.g., for how popular the 2nd century hypothesis is, please add that information instead. –Blue Hoopy Frood (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * From Ivy Plus to US state universities everybody toes the line that the Book of Daniel is a 2nd century writing. Why? Because the alternative is pseudohistory.

"Robert Todd Carroll has developed a list of criteria to identify pseudo-historic works. He states that: "Pseudohistory is purported history which:
 * Treats myths, legends, sagas and similar literature as literal truth"

- Pseudohistory


 * Again, our house, our rules, obey the rules or expect consequences for your editing. WP:NPOV does not mean WP:GEVAL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: • The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;"

- Beardsley Ruml


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"Thank you for your views. Wikipedia has a strong bias in favor of academic sources for history. That is how it should be.  If archaeology says Beersheba was founded 6000 years ago and the bible says it was founded 4000 years ago, archaeology wins. Zerotalk 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)"


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

3RR exemption
Removing copyright violations. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Modern day interpretations
The first three beasts are Britain/America (British Lion with American Eagle wings being removed - war of independence), Russian Bear, Leopar with 4 heads/Fowl = Germany/France cooperation and 4 German Reichs. 2A02:C7D:395:4D00:1964:7809:62AB:E89A (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not original research, and even if it were, it makes more sense than empires that disappeared centuries ago. There are many websites that have the same view. Here is one: http://www.prophecyunleashed.com/articles/article/178/prophecy-fundamentals-the-beasts-of-daniel-7


 * Not WP:RS. It's written by WP:RANDY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, if you want to place faith in interpretations by people from centuries ago, even though their writings are WP:RANDY, and not interpretations by people today, and continue to insist that the 4 beasts are long gone empires and not major world powers of today, then that is up to you. I bid you good day. 2A02:C7D:395:4D00:E1BF:D280:CF7:5685 (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The Book of Daniel does not contain actual prophesies. It is a Hellenistic period-historical novel, covering the then-recent past. Long gone empires are the ones actually depicted. Daniel himself is a fictional character. Dimadick (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm. That sounds like WP:OR and WP:RANDY to me 2A02:C7D:395:4D00:D950:62B4:3FE6:4598 (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * We don't listen to you, we only listen to WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu: I think we could include in the article this source which provides an actually modern, alternative interpretation for the chapter. What do you think about it? Potatín5 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as you leave the academic consensus be, you may use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. That's my view, others may argue that Baptists are too far from the mainstream. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)