• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The biogeographic evidence for evolution

Audie

Veteran Member
Yup...

.

Its what they do - most of them seem psychologically programmed to never admit to even trivial errors.

It is a hard brittle shell they build about themselves,
and like a lightbulb it cannot withstand the smallest hole.

Personally infallible! Tho none will go so far as to
admit that.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You DID ask why God didn't use a word for oblate spheroid/why Hebrew had no such word.

What I said was that God could invent a word that would convey a 100% correct description of the earth to his people. That’s if he was truly concerned about conveying accurate information to the world via the Bible. But also remember, your argument included the claim that information from the Bible that is kinda-sorta accurate indicates some kind of prescience, on the part of the Bible writers. That claim doesn’t make sense. That’s the claim I’ve taken issue with, if you’ll remember.

You don’t seem to understand that you are the one limiting your god’s powers. That’s not me doing that.

What have we resolved or not resolved about my current claim? I claim the Hebrew word is "sphere"; you claim "disk". I also claim that Job predates the Greek scholars who measured the Earth.

The claim is about the accuracy of the Bible in regards to its descriptions about the physical world and whether or not its descriptions indicate prescience on the part of the writers. I say it doesn’t. You say it does, but refuse to speak anymore on the subject and have brushed off any questions posed to you about it as rhetorical and childish. Though that’s after you changed my arguments into something else that I didn’t say.

How many balls have you seen that have "ends" on them, by the way?


What I did do is concede how you remain unconvinced, and that we can look at another claim, as soon as you stop being childish! What is your problem today and why am I hearing about it? Shouldn't you ask God why He used some Hebrew word in His text? That's what I do, which is how I know so much about the Bible.


And I’m wondering why we would move onto another claim when we haven’t resolved the first one yet. What’s childish about that?


I’ve learned about the Bible from reading it. Your God won’t answer my questions (probably because he most likely isn’t there). And neither will you, apparently. The discussion we're having is about your claims about the Bible's supposed prescience.


And don’t forget, I’m still waiting for you to back up your other claim that, “There are experienced sailors who today claim the Earth is flat.”
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
What I said was that God could invent a word that would convey a 100% correct description of the earth to his people. That’s if he was truly concerned about conveying accurate information to the world via the Bible. But also remember, your argument included the claim that information from the Bible that is kinda-sorta accurate indicates some kind of prescience, on the part of the Bible writers. That claim doesn’t make sense. That’s the claim I’ve taken issue with, if you’ll remember.

You don’t seem to understand that you are the one limiting your god’s powers. That’s not me doing that.



The claim is about the accuracy of the Bible in regards to its descriptions about the physical world and whether or not its descriptions indicate prescience on the part of the writers. I say it doesn’t. You say it does, but refuse to speak anymore on the subject and have brushed off any questions posed to you about it as rhetorical and childish. Though that’s after you changed my arguments into something else that I didn’t say.

How many balls have you seen that have "ends" on them, by the way?





And I’m wondering why we would move onto another claim when we haven’t resolved the first one yet. What’s childish about that?


I’ve learned about the Bible from reading it. Your God won’t answer my questions (probably because he most likely isn’t there). And neither will you, apparently.


And don’t forget, I’m still waiting for you to back up your other claim that, “There are experienced sailors who today claim the Earth is flat.”


But you know, if this here god actually put precisely accurate
statements in the bible, things that the ancients could not
possibly have known, then, would he not have thereby
proved his own existence?

Cant have that, for lo, with proof, of what virtue is faith?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I wrote: "The book of Daniel contains numerous prophecies, where angelic beings/God reveals to Daniel future events. Any scholar claiming a late date for Daniel is saying the prophecies are fraudulent, like me "predicting" Lincoln will be the 16th President. The Dead Sea scrolls and other things show us the early dates for the Bible."

I recently wrote, "Stop trimming my answers, so people can see your cherry picking."

And I AM a Jew! I know how Jews interpret Daniel! You are absolutely wrong.

Daniel constantly, constantly says, "Word of the Lord revealed... angel told me X..." etc. I've known since I was a (Jewish) child, for one example, that Daniel prophesied Alexander the Great, and grew up with the (alleged) tale that Alexander was delighted to learn he was prophesied in Daniel and made obeisance and offerings at the Temple.

Restating: Daniel is either an early book showing prescience or a later book showing a liar who claims God and angels are revealing future events, that were rather in the past.

There is MUCH evidence that Daniel is early, and not only is it the prescient word of God, even skeptics who give it the latest possible dating know it comes before Jesus, who fulfilled Daniel's prophecies of Messiah, in timing and nature. JESUS IS GOD!
No, it looks like you merely assumed that Daniel made a prophecy about Alexander the Great. Bible prophecy is failed prophecy. The precise prophecies fail and the rest are so vague that they can be "fulfilled" numerous times. That makes them failures as well. Some argue that it is an abuse of the Bible to claim that actual events were foreseen.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
No, it looks like you merely assumed that Daniel made a prophecy about Alexander the Great. Bible prophecy is failed prophecy. The precise prophecies fail and the rest are so vague that they can be "fulfilled" numerous times. That makes them failures as well. Some argue that it is an abuse of the Bible to claim that actual events were foreseen.

in the biz we call it assuming facts not in evidence
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
in the biz we call it assuming facts not in evidence
I am rather amazed at times that Christians cannot seem to understand if they all disagree about a "prophecy" that means it is a failed prophecy. In computer terminology multiple interpretations is a bug.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That cannot be proven or supported. Basically it is slander and deliberate bias.

No, it is an observation. Your poor translation of it is a "slander and deliberate bias". You won't go by the evidence. Instead you decide ahead of time what you want it to mean. In fact it has been explained that it is not even calling it a fraud. It is the literalists that use that term.

Daniel has multiple interpretations, that alone tells you that as prophecy goes it is a failed prophecy.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Yes, you MUST claim that Daniel's author is a fraud, writing history and claiming it as (hindsight) prophecy, however, the very Daniel passages you are likely thinking of claim to have been spoken by angels in Daniel's presence and etc. Liberal scholars have to use late dating as a prop to avoid belief (at all costs).

You might therefore find it fascinating, for example, to review "early and late dating at Jericho", where you can read about massive amounts of pottery and relics there in the ruins (I'll be there again in person in about a week, in Israel!), and then a sudden "unknown catastrophism" where there is no pottery in the record (almost like a Cambrian explosion/great extinction of shards and relics) and how the first archaeologists dated Jericho early and BOOM--Joshua was there THEN when the walls fell, and then, I bet you can guess what more recent scholars have done...?
I didn't accuse you or any scholar of fraud, rather, I wrote:

Yes, you MUST claim that Daniel's author is a fraud, writing history and claiming it as (hindsight) prophecy, however, the very Daniel passages you are likely thinking of claim to have been spoken by angels in Daniel's presence and etc. SOME scholars have to use late dating as a prop to avoid belief (at all costs).
The book of Daniel contains numerous prophecies, where angelic beings/God reveals to Daniel future events. Any scholar claiming a late date for Daniel is saying the prophecies are fraudulent, like me "predicting" Lincoln will be the 16th President. The Dead Sea scrolls and other things show us the early dates for the Bible.
I wrote: "The book of Daniel contains numerous prophecies, where angelic beings/God reveals to Daniel future events. Any scholar claiming a late date for Daniel is saying the prophecies are fraudulent, like me "predicting" Lincoln will be the 16th President. The Dead Sea scrolls and other things show us the early dates for the Bible."

I recently wrote, "Stop trimming my answers, so people can see your cherry picking."

And I AM a Jew! I know how Jews interpret Daniel! You are absolutely wrong.

Daniel constantly, constantly says, "Word of the Lord revealed... angel told me X..." etc. I've known since I was a (Jewish) child, for one example, that Daniel prophesied Alexander the Great, and grew up with the (alleged) tale that Alexander was delighted to learn he was prophesied in Daniel and made obeisance and offerings at the Temple.

Restating: Daniel is either an early book showing prescience or a later book showing a liar who claims God and angels are revealing future events, that were rather in the past.

There is MUCH evidence that Daniel is early, and not only is it the prescient word of God, even skeptics who give it the latest possible dating know it comes before Jesus, who fulfilled Daniel's prophecies of Messiah, in timing and nature. JESUS IS GOD!
That cannot be proven or supported. Basically it is slander and deliberate bias.

Since I have not responded to the posts regarding to Daniel, I would address them all.

Other than what the Old Testament say in the books of Daniel and Ezekiel (mentioned only), and from the Apocrypha and Abrahamic traditions, no outside sources (historical records) can confirm Daniel ever existing as a real person.

What I mean by outside sources, like those texts from the Babylonians, and from the Persians, which don't say anything about Daniel, texts that were written during the time of Nabonius and Cyrus.

And it isn't just the external sources don't say anything about Daniel, it is the Book of Daniel itself.

Whoever wrote Daniel, wasn't very good at keep Babylonian and Persian histories accurate, including who rule which kingdom, when.

Sure, Daniel (book) got Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, both are historical figures, but just because the book can name names, even then the Book of Daniel got everything mixed up, and muddled.

There are no relationship between Nebuchadnezzar II (reign 605 - 562 BCE) and Belshazzar. Belshazzar is no offspring or descendant of Nebuchadnezzar.

Belshazzar's father was Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar. Nabonidus was an outsider, who started a new dynasty (556 - 539 BCE) after murdering Labashi-Marduk, a son of Neriglissar (also known as Nergal-sharezer).

Belshazzar wasn't even a king; Nabonidus appointed his son as governor of Babylon, but it was Nabonidus who ruled the Neo-Babylonian Empire, not Belshazzar.

The only family to rule after Nebuchadnezzar, was his son Amel-Marduk (562 - 560 BCE), and Amel-Marduk was overthrown and murdered by his brother-in-law, Neriglissar (reign 560 - 556 BCE).

So the Book of Daniel left out Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus, left out the part where Belshazzar wasn't a king, and Belshazzar was not even part of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty.

Then there is a matter of the Book of Daniel making up fictional character Darius the Mede, who supposed captured Babylon in 539 BCE.

There are no king by that name, ever ruling the Medes, no one by name, until Darius I (reign 522 - 486 BCE, also known as Darius the Great). The real Darius started the new dynasty in 522 BCE, after Bardiya, and appeared in Ezra.

It was Persian king Cyrus II (reign 559 - 530 BCE) who captured Babylon, not this non-existent Darius the Mede.

There was a Median king, named Astyages (reign 585 - 550 BCE), who was a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus and Cyrus. And Astyages was brother-in-law to Nebuchadnezzar. And Astyages lost his empire to Cyrus, c 550 BCE.

Cyrus had two sons, who ruled after him: Cambyses II (reign 530 - 522 BCE) and Bardiya (reign 522 BCE).

No other books in the OT, mentioning this Darius the Medes. 2 Chronicles and Ezra only talk of Cyrus being the conqueror of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and capturing Babylon, so Daniel conflicted with these 2 books.

The Book of Daniel was clearly not written in the 6th century BCE. It got so many details of history wrong, leaving out large parts of it. Most like it was written in the mid-2nd century BCE.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
Oh, I forgot to mention.

The outside sources, these are -
  1. Nabonidus Cylinders (3 of them found in 3 different cities: Larsa, Ur and Sippar (dated to c 555 - c 540 BCE);
  2. Cyrus Cylinder (dated between c 539 and 538 BCE, discovered at Babylon);
  3. Verse Account of Nabonidus, which was written during Cyrus' reign.
None of these inscriptions include the name Daniel.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I didn't ask you whether "God made a rock so heavy He couldn't lift it". But you already knew that.

So we're at the usual point in the conversation where you repeatedly refuse to respond to questions or points, after you've already distorted the position of the person you are conversing with, then accuse the other person of being rude or childish so that you can dismiss them and move on from the difficult questions you desperately do not want to answer in the first place.


Lather, rinse, repeat.

This is getting really old BB. And it really doesn't make your position all that convincing or appealing.

You seem wholly uninterested in asking genuine questions, and more interested in attempting to entrap theists.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No, it looks like you merely assumed that Daniel made a prophecy about Alexander the Great. Bible prophecy is failed prophecy. The precise prophecies fail and the rest are so vague that they can be "fulfilled" numerous times. That makes them failures as well. Some argue that it is an abuse of the Bible to claim that actual events were foreseen.

It's not that Daniel prophesied about Alexander (though, arguably, he did). It's rather that Daniel, demonstrably written early (Dead Sea Scrolls circa 200 BC) predicts the Messiah would die for the sin of the world in 30 AD!
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Since I have not responded to the posts regarding to Daniel, I would address them all.

Other than what the Old Testament say in the books of Daniel and Ezekiel (mentioned only), and from the Apocrypha and Abrahamic traditions, no outside sources (historical records) can confirm Daniel ever existing as a real person.

What I mean by outside sources, like those texts from the Babylonians, and from the Persians, which don't say anything about Daniel, texts that were written during the time of Nabonius and Cyrus.

And it isn't just the external sources don't say anything about Daniel, it is the Book of Daniel itself.

Whoever wrote Daniel, wasn't very good at keep Babylonian and Persian histories accurate, including who rule which kingdom, when.

Sure, Daniel (book) got Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, both are historical figures, but just because the book can name names, even then the Book of Daniel got everything mixed up, and muddled.

There are no relationship between Nebuchadnezzar II (reign 605 - 562 BCE) and Belshazzar. Belshazzar is no offspring or descendant of Nebuchadnezzar.

Belshazzar's father was Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar. Nabonidus was an outsider, who started a new dynasty (556 - 539 BCE) after murdering Labashi-Marduk, a son of Neriglissar (also known as Nergal-sharezer).

Belshazzar wasn't even a king; Nabonidus appointed his son as governor of Babylon, but it was Nabonidus who ruled the Neo-Babylonian Empire, not Belshazzar.

The only family to rule after Nebuchadnezzar, was his son Amel-Marduk (562 - 560 BCE), and Amel-Marduk was overthrown and murdered by his brother-in-law, Neriglissar (reign 560 - 556 BCE).

So the Book of Daniel left out Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus, left out the part where Belshazzar wasn't a king, and Belshazzar was not even part of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty.

Then there is a matter of the Book of Daniel making up fictional character Darius the Mede, who supposed captured Babylon in 539 BCE.

There are no king by that name, ever ruling the Medes, no one by name, until Darius I (reign 522 - 486 BCE, also known as Darius the Great). The real Darius started the new dynasty in 522 BCE, after Bardiya, and appeared in Ezra.

It was Persian king Cyrus II (reign 559 - 530 BCE) who captured Babylon, not this non-existent Darius the Mede.

There was a Median king, named Astyages (reign 585 - 550 BCE), who was a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus and Cyrus. And Astyages was brother-in-law to Nebuchadnezzar. And Astyages lost his empire to Cyrus, c 550 BCE.

Cyrus had two sons, who ruled after him: Cambyses II (reign 530 - 522 BCE) and Bardiya (reign 522 BCE).

No other books in the OT, mentioning this Darius the Medes. 2 Chronicles and Ezra only talk of Cyrus being the conqueror of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and capturing Babylon, so Daniel conflicted with these 2 books.

The Book of Daniel was clearly not written in the 6th century BCE. It got so many details of history wrong, leaving out large parts of it. Most like it was written in the mid-2nd century BCE.

The Book of Daniel is demonstrably early (Dead Sea Scrolls, circa 200 BC, as you've noted above). It predicts the Messiah would die for the world's sin in 30 AD (483 years following the decree to rebuild Jerusalem)!
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You seem wholly uninterested in asking genuine questions, and more interested in attempting to entrap theists.
I'm sorry I don't have much to say at this point beyond LOL.
I mean, seriously. :shrug:

Maybe if you paid attention to the questions I actually asked for a change, instead of answering questions you expected or wanted me to ask.
Stop arguing straw men and maybe you'll get somewhere with somebody. Some day. I wish that person luck.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The Book of Daniel is demonstrably early (Dead Sea Scrolls, circa 200 BC, as you've noted above). It predicts the Messiah would die for the world's sin in 30 AD (483 years following the decree to rebuild Jerusalem)!

I know what I wrote, I wrote:

The Book of Daniel was clearly not written in the 6th century BCE. It got so many details of history wrong, leaving out large parts of it. Most like it was written in the mid-2nd century BCE.

It's not that Daniel prophesied about Alexander (though, arguably, he did). It's rather that Daniel, demonstrably written early (Dead Sea Scrolls circa 200 BC) predicts the Messiah would die for the sin of the world in 30 AD!

I wrote Daniel was most likely written around “mid-2nd century BCE”.

So around about the time of Maccabean Revolt (167-160 BCE) against the Seleucid rulers, Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Antiochus V Eurpator.

So if the Book of Daniel was predicting Alexander the Great, then it was written a century-and-a-half after Alexander’s death (323 BCE)...so NOT a real prophecy.

What this mean, including what I had written in my previous posts about Book of Daniel, no Daniel wrote this book, Daniel is a fictional character.

There is no historical Daniel being contemporary to Nebuchadnezzar, and to Belshazzar and Cyrus the Great, no Daniel living in the 6th century BCE.

As to -
It predicts the Messiah would die for the world's sin in 30 AD (483 years following the decree to rebuild Jerusalem)

I don’t think Daniel 9:24-27 was prophecy about Jesus’ death, but about the death of high priest Onias III, which was one of the triggers to set off the Maccabean Revolt in 167 BCE.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I'm sorry I don't have much to say at this point beyond LOL.
I mean, seriously. :shrug:

Maybe if you paid attention to the questions I actually asked for a change, instead of answering questions you expected or wanted me to ask.
Stop arguing straw men and maybe you'll get somewhere with somebody. Some day. I wish that person luck.

Okay, I'll suspend disbelief. Ask me a question or two and and I'll answer you directly, and we can go from there. Thank you.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I know what I wrote, I wrote:





I wrote Daniel was most likely written around “mid-2nd century BCE”.

So around about the time of Maccabean Revolt (167-160 BCE) against the Seleucid rulers, Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Antiochus V Eurpator.

So if the Book of Daniel was predicting Alexander the Great, then it was written a century-and-a-half after Alexander’s death (323 BCE)...so NOT a real prophecy.

What this mean, including what I had written in my previous posts about Book of Daniel, no Daniel wrote this book, Daniel is a fictional character.

There is no historical Daniel being contemporary to Nebuchadnezzar, and to Belshazzar and Cyrus the Great, no Daniel living in the 6th century BCE.

As to -


I don’t think Daniel 9:24-27 was prophecy about Jesus’ death, but about the death of high priest Onias III, which was one of the triggers to set off the Maccabean Revolt in 167 BCE.

You are unaware when the decree was given to rebuild Jerusalem? Because to place the prophecy to Onias III, you'd shift back the trigger event 200 years.

Of course, none of these things happened with the Maccabean revolt:

Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

From above, did Jesus or the Maccabees:

1) END AND PAY FOR/ATONE FOR HUMAN SIN

2) Usher in ETERNAL righteousness

3) Seal up end time vision and prophecy (Christ's return)

4) Anoint the Most Holy Place - since the Maccabees were not LEVITES
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Okay, I'll suspend disbelief. Ask me a question or two and and I'll answer you directly, and we can go from there. Thank you.
And this is the usual part of our conversation where you ask me to re-ask the questions you've been avoiding and or strawmanning for several posts.

I'm sorry Billiards, but I'm tired. Every discussion with you follows the exact same pattern.
I would really love if you could go back over the last few posts and really address the points I was getting at.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I'm sorry I don't have much to say at this point beyond LOL.
I mean, seriously. :shrug:

Maybe if you paid attention to the questions I actually asked for a change, instead of answering questions you expected or wanted me to ask.
Stop arguing straw men and maybe you'll get somewhere with somebody. Some day. I wish that person luck.

I just rolled up to 1062, where you opined on a number of subjects, chiding me, and with only one question:

Prove your claim: There are experienced sailors who today claim the Earth is flat.

There are countless local fishermen who fish within a few miles of their homes, worldwide, many of them claim the Earth is flat. Why do you doubt this?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
You are unaware when the decree was given to rebuild Jerusalem? Because to place the prophecy to Onias III, you'd shift back the trigger event 200 years.

Of course, none of these things happened with the Maccabean revolt:

Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

From above, did Jesus or the Maccabees:

1) END AND PAY FOR/ATONE FOR HUMAN SIN

2) Usher in ETERNAL righteousness

3) Seal up end time vision and prophecy (Christ's return)

4) Anoint the Most Holy Place - since the Maccabees were not LEVITES

With regarding to your last point (point 4).

In Daniel 12’s last 3 verses, it talk of sacrifices being denied for certain amount of time:

11 From the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that desolates is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred ninety days. 12 Happy are those who persevere and attain the thousand three hundred thirty-five days. 13 But you, go your way, and rest; you shall rise for your reward at the end of the days.”

Can you tell me when ever was burnt offerings were being taken from the people “for 1290 days” (Daniel 12:11), during Jesus’ lifetime? During his ministry?

1290 days is roughly for about 3 1/2 year, BilliardsBall?

It never happened at any time while Jesus was alive.

The only time that I recall in history are the events that occurred during Antiochus IV’s reign (175 - 164 BCE).

But it wasn’t a single event (eg Onias’ death) that caused the Maccabean Revolt.

Onias was high priest before Antiochus’ reign, but was forced to resign when Jason managed to bribe Antiochus for the office of high priesthood. But Jason lost this office in the same manner after Menelaus also bribed Antiochus, and became the new high priest.

When the still influential Onias among the Jews, heard of Menelaus plundering the Temple, Onias denounced Menelaus, which made him a target for assassination.

Not long after that, in 168 BCE when Antiochus’ failed campaign in Egypt, he discovered that Jason had drove out Menelaus, and taken Jerusalem, after the false news of Antiochus’ death, Antiochus ordered his army to retake Jerusalem and butchered Jews there. Tens of thousands were slaughtered.

In 167 BCE, Antiochus ordered all sacrifices to be stopped, and had defiled the Temple by erecting altar to worship the Greek gods.

These events - the assassination of Onias, the feud between Jason and Menelaus, the persecutions of Jews that followed, and the decree that only allowed Greek gods to be worshipped on the Temple ground - accumulated for the Maccabean Revolt (167 - 160 BCE).

A series of victories against the Seleucid army, eventually led to the Maccabees entering Jerusalem. The younger brother of Judah Maccabeus was appointed as high priest, hence begun the cleansing of the Temple, ridding the Greek altar, and restoration of Jewish religious customs.

1290 days referred to Antiochus’ decree, to the time of Antiochus’ death in 164 BCE.

His death didn’t stop the rebellion, the Maccabees continued to resist the Seleucid rule and against Hellenisd Jews.

Daniel 12:12 mentioned another period - of 1335 days - which almost equals to 3 years and nearly 8 months. This would be the continued struggle against the Seleucid ruler, Antiochus V, until the rebellion ended in 160 BCE.

No such dates (eg 1290 days and 1335 days) fit with the Temple “desolations” and “anointing” during Jesus’ lifetime.

No, BilliardsBall, I think the Book of Daniel was definitely written during or after the Revolt, and that Daniel was invented character.
 
Top