 |
| 
Robert Furney
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 1/27/2002 7:59 AM (GMT -6) |   | What exactly our the thoughts of open theists regarding Daniel 11? There we read of the Persian attempt to conquer Greece, we read of Alexander the Great who leaves his kingdom in the hands of others, particular the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires. How can such a long and detailed prophecy be explained?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 1/28/2002 2:48 PM (GMT -6) | | DA 11:36 "The king will do as he pleases."
And yet he will be fulfilling the very detailed prophecy about him!
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/29/2002 11:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Very good question Robert. If the traditional dating of Daniel is correct (6th century) then this chapter poses quite a challenge for the Open View. I must at the start confess that its been a number of years since I've studied Daniel 11 in detail, but I'll offer here a few considerations, for what they're worth.
1) An important preliminary consideration is that most scholars -- and even some rather conservative ones (e.g. FF.Bruce) -- date this book in the 2nd century. Others date earlier parts of this book early, but the latter portions (including chapter 11) later (2nd cent). The arguments for this later dating are not simply because it speaks of events in the 4th century (and liberal scholars don't accept prophecy). The primary argument is linguistic and archeological. The argument is that Daniel (esp. these later chapters) uses terms and employs concepts that weren't in circulation earlier. In other words, the book is filled with anachronisms. Also, the book is apocalyptic, a genra that didn't really exist till the 2nd century BC.
Of course, many other conservative scholars believe they have handled these objecdtions. The debate goes on. In any case, I think most openness exponents date the book in the 2nd century. I'm inclined to agree, though I'm open (excuse the pun) on the matter. 
Some conservatives argue that a later dating argues against biblical inspiration, but I don't see why this has to be so. Apocalyptic writings often write from the perspective of the hero the book centers on. Nor does this mean that the book is WRONG on any point or fictional in its historical references. It just means that the genra allowed for past events to be spoken of as in the future.
2) Even if we go with the traditional dating, however, I don't see that chapter 11 rules out the Open View. We must weigh the force of ch.11 in predicting the future against the force of all the other passages Openness proponents have called our attention to which suggest a partly open future. I would argue that, while the level of detail in chapter 11 is surprising from an open perspective, it doesn't teach or require that the future is exhaustively settled. Since the Open View grants that the future is partly settled, this chapter is not in principle opposed to the open view.
3) If my recollection is correct, the identification of the king spoken of in this chapter with Alexander the Great is not without difficulty. The argument, as I recall, is that his campaigns did not unfold precisely as this chapter indicates. (This is actually an argument favoring an earlier dating since a later author would presumably have gotten every detail right!). If this is so -- as it seems to be in some other prophecies -- then it is incompatible with the classical view of foreknowledge but consistent with the Open View.
4. All that aside, an openness exponent who accepted the earlier dating of Daniel would have to simply grant that this level of detail in this chapter was settled (or at least largely settled) from God's perspective several hundred years before it happened on the basis of a)God's own will and b) circumstances already in place. A God who knows every cause operating in the world, human and angelic (note the fasinating incidental reference to the help of a foreign god in vs. 39) and who has a plan to steer human ambitions in certain directions and control other relevant variables, can at times predict the future to this degree. It is surprising, but not impossible.
What mitigates against the surprise a bit is that even we humans don't have much trouble predicting how leaders of corrupt empires will behave when the circumstances (which, after all, God can largely control) are right.
Thanks for getting me to think about this. I've been occasionally sensing the need to revisit this issue over the last year but haven't gotten around to it. You're providing another catalyst.
Blessings
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:39 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|