Psychocutiep080 datingpoint org Free online chat video two way girls
The reality is that other than Porphyry, there is no significant historical attack on the earlier dating of Daniel until the 17th Century! I won't use that editor again for this :) Textual analysis has established to the satisfaction of secular historians that the book grew in stages, beginning as separate Aramaic stories of the Persian and Hellenistic period, which were collected and then had a vision added possibly in the 3rd century B. E., forming the Aramaic chapters 2-7, to which were added the three 2nd century B. I also feel that the paragraph(s) regarding the detailed chronology of the book's creation do not belong at the head of the article, which should serve as an introduction.
Given that only one commentator introduced significant criticism on this point for nearly 2000 years [at least 200 BC to 1600 AD], I think "already drawn by Porphyry" is misleading. Note also Phantym's other contribution: Prophecy of Seventy Weeks.
Shouldn't this "time of the end" be pointing towards a completely different era, with other kings of north and south?
- Tag Daze Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say anything is "common consensus", especially on a subject as controversial as this.
That ignores all the people who disagree, as if they didn't exist or didn't count.
Lastly, it was not "surreptitious." I stated flat out that I changed the first paragraph and gave the reason why.
The current version of this page is intolerably inaccurate.